The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism


John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

 

After WWII the image of the United Nations was an international organization that the Allied victors would utilize to prevent another nation to pull any conquest objectives ala Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan. After the war and the public emerging of atrocities committed by Nazis and the Japanese war machine populations of Western nations breathed a sigh of relief that a UN would prevent global despotic atrocities.

 

The first dent in this relief was the Communist international revolutionary agenda of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR – essentially Russia) and Communist (Red) China. Those Communist giants used their satellite vassal yet officially independent nations to fill the UN with Marxist opposition to everything Western especially to the USA.

 

The USSR and Red China in their efforts to woo global Communism began to assist Third World nations willing to be anti-Western (with anti-Americanism as the focus) in their development. Hence Communist revolutionaries began to emerge in newly independent nations formerly dominated as Western Colonies primarily of European nations.

 

The Muslim world advanced despots as monarchs and dictators who nationalized the Western control of the oil industries managed by Multinational Corporations (MNC). Islam is inherently antagonistic to all things non-Muslim inspired by Islamic revered writings.

 

The USSR tried to use this Islamic antipathy to export Communist principles to the Muslim world. However, Islam-alone brainwashing ultimately meant the Muslim despots used the USSR support to offset the power of Western supported MNCs. Essentially Muslim despots played an international game of pitting the USA and the USSR against each other to shore up their own Islamic authoritarian regimes.

 

THEN the unthinkable according to Islamic doctrine occurred. Jews abused for centuries in the West gained sympathy due to Nazi genocide resulting in a gradual reclamation of the Jewish Homeland. A homeland that had been under one form or another of Islamic control due to conquest since the mid-600s AD.

 

A Jewish Homeland is unthinkable because in intolerant doctrine, once conquered by Islam a land must remain Islamic forever. The Islamic vision of conquest domination in three opinions:

 

 

 

 

Five Stages of Islamic Conquest

The absence of Communist satellite nations due to the collapse of the USSR led to the domination of two groups in the UN: Nations dominated by Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism and Nations dominated by Islamic Thought.

 

Since I’m not really an erudite writer let’s look at some quotes relating to Leftist (perhaps Marxist) Globalist Multiculturalism (all from essays or opinions that should be read in full at your leisure):

 

The Pox of Multiculturalism; By Bruce Walker; American Thinker; 5/19/18:

 

What the left calls “multiculturalism” is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture.  When the left talks about “diversity,” it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind.

 

 

Multiculturalism is an effort to destroy culture in the name of harmonizing cultures.  It is, at best, gross globalist imperialism.  It is, at worst, the Orwellian deconstruction of all societal values and beliefs.

 

Multiculturalism: As A Tool To Divide And Conquer – The Layman’s Primer; By Louis Beam; LouisBeam.com:

 

No nation is born multicultured. Multiculturalism is an unnatural as well as unhealthy condition that can only afflict states in national decline. A multicultural state carries in it’s [sic] geneses the seeds of eventual national destruction.

All multicultural nations will be found to be in a state of political, moral, economic and social decay. Greed and corruption will characterize the government coupled with oppressive measures directed against citizens. Lies and deceit will be stock and trade of media, politicians, and educational institutions. Such are the bellwethers of a multiculturalist advent.

In modern times multiculturalism is instituted from the top down as an elitist ruling class tool used to play one or more racial or ethnic groups against another. The ensuing cultural melee serves the political designs, economic goals and power needs of elitist rulers and their sponsors. This technique was developed by Marxist ideologues who used multiculturalism in Russia to divide and conquer resistance to the institution of a communist state. The end result of their successful takeover was the murder of thirty million humans in the Soviet Union alone. Many more elsewhere.

The same internationalist cabals who sponsored Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin as the multicultural leaders of the Soviet state from their banking houses in New York, similarly sponsor the multicultural leaders of the United States, Canada, and Europe today. An interlocking network of foundations such as Ford and Carnegie, international banking empires such as Rockefeller and Rothschild, and government agencies firmly in their control work in tandem with controlled propaganda outlets such as the New York Times, CBS, and Hollywood, to promote, foster, and institute multiculturalism today. While the examples used in this essay deal primarily with the United States the same process with the same methods is being employed elsewhere. This of itself is prima facie evidence of a cabal which promotes multiculturalism as a tool to achieve its objectives.

Multiculturalism is being used as a hammer to forge the compliant people who will compose the obedient states of the New World Order. As a weapon of post modern political warfare multiculturalism has few equals, which, thus explains its use currently against all of Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Deliberate fragmentation of these nations and the resultant loss of national identity and purpose into politically disharmonious units, serves as a stepping stone to world government. And who will compose that world government? A ruling class consisting of an “economic hierarchy” that replaces the philosophy of the nineteenth century “natural hierarchy.” A force that views countries and the people that live in them first as economic targets to be exploited, and second as military targets to be defeated if they resist.

 

 

Social instability, caused by a steady erosion of standards and values, coupled with a scramble over dwindling economic opportunities by conflicting ethnic groups, produces precisely the alienation and conflict needed to implement a multicultural state. Further, the lack of common standards and values leads to personal disorganization, resulting in unsociable behavior. This is the life support system of a multicultural state. In a word: anomie.

As a political tool multiculturalism has several applications. It is used to prevent a national consensus among the electorate. The confluence of divergent life views, cultures, beliefs, religions, ethnic habits, etc. insures a swirling river of discontent upon which the multiculturalist rides. It is a perfect method of ensuring that there can never in the future be accord, unity, and a common agreed upon destiny among those ruled. Multiculturalism represents a basic form of divide and conquer, to the benefit of corrupt government and its sponsors.

Multiculturalism is likewise a financial tool used to socially and economically level a targeted population. When implemented, it becomes in fact a battle over scarce resources and shrinking economic opportunities, with government weighing in on the side of cheap labour. A continual flow of impoverished workers is insured through immigration (both legal and illegal), who by working for less compensation continually drive wages down. For the vast majority of citizens the standard of living will not increase, but rather constantly decrease.

 

As a general rule:

 

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

This means: multiculturalism will have succeeded in so much as the country has failed.

 

Multiculturalism can further be used as “transitional tool” to take a targeted population from one form of government to another. When a political condition of greed, massive corruption, and diversity of objective is coupled to a social condition of drugs, violence, and discontent, therein exists the perfect environment for governmental change to a system that more closely serves long term interests of ruling elitists. Seeing that both the problem and solution are provided by the same people makes the CIA’s importation of some one hundred billion dollars worth of cocaine and other drugs into the United States understandable. While at the same time explaining FBI, ATF, and other, more secretive federal government agencies involvement in domestic terrorism or its cover-up. Suddenly, that which erroneously was previously thought to be unrelated events show their common thread and purpose.

Within the deleterious milieu of multiculturalism exists the propaganda opportunity for re-education of the people into a more malleable entity. A targeted population will be shaped mentally by new forms of public education in the schools, media indoctrination, and by elitist pronouncements. Thus placed in a crucible of economic necessity and social pressure, once free citizens become despondent masses, adjusting to and accepting fundamentally changing national circumstances as a matter of expedient survival. For the reticent, conformity by force will ensue in the form of legal penalties disguised as ant-drug, anti-terrorism, or anti-hate laws. All of this leading toward what George Orwell so aptly predicted in his book 1984:

 

“Almost certainly we are moving into an age of totalitarian dictatorships. An age in which freedom of thought will be at first a deadly sin and later on a meaningless abstraction.”

A society is being spawned where those with the most unsociable behavior, deviant lifestyle, or personal failures are given the most by government. This is TRUST ME READ ENTIRE ESSAY

 

The Globalism Threat – Socialism’s New World Order; By Jeff Carlson, CFA; TheMarketsWork.com; 2/24/17:

 

 

Globalism is often clad in free trade garb but in fact there is a hindrance of free trade with globalism. Globalism, through its attempt to erase national borders (and identities), applies a broad economic brush to varying problems and economic conditions of differing regions and as a result fails by definition. Globalism tends to exacerbate economic problems rather than fixing them, and hinders free trade by distorting market responses.

Globalism initiates with talk of open borders and free trade but inevitably leads to concentrated government and centralized planning. …

 

 

Although the terms are often used interchangeably, Globalization is NOT the same as Globalism. They are very different things. Globalization is a natural economic outgrowth of trade. Globalism is a political goal – plain and simple.

 

 

Globalism differs from Capitalism in several distinct aspects. Globalism promotes globally centralized control of laws, foreign policy and monetary policy. Unlike Capitalism, Globalism inherently blends rule of law with rule of man. Globalism comes into existence through the ownership of laws. And through the ownership of law, Globalism gains ownership of nations.

 

If you refer back to Gramsci, Alinsky and the Left, you will recall I introduced several concepts – Counter Hegemony, Critical Theory and Gradualism. Antonio Gramsci created the Theory of Cultural Hegemony – the way in which nations use cultural institutions to maintain power in capitalist societies. Gramsci felt that in order to change society, the entire value systems of Societal Institutions must be overturned. This would require the introduction of an entirely new set of values and beliefs – Counter Hegemony. Gradualism – along with Critical Theory – were the processes used to achieve Counter Hegemony. Marxist/Socialist philosophers – led by the Frankfurt School – picked up where Gramsci left off and brought these ideas to America. They refined Gramsci’s Marxist ideas – they reshaped them.

 

 

If Culture is the true source of Capitalism – how do you truly change Culture? You change it by removing the identities of Culture. As Theodor Adorno stated, you create a “genuine liberal” – an individual “free of all groups, including race, family and institutions”. A Global Citizen.

 

The tool used to accomplish this goal? Political Correctness – or “same thinking”. Raymond V. Raehn put it this way; “Political Correctness seeks to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans and is therefore totalitarian in nature”. Political Correctness is Cultural Marxism – also known as multiculturalism. Political Correctness is the translation of Marxism from economic to cultural terms. And once you’ve changed the culture you can change the laws.

 

The end game of Political Correctness – its ultimate goal – is Globalism.

 

And it is here we must be careful. For Globalization has opened a pathway to Globalism. This is the very reason the two are so often presented as the same. An economic process – Globalization – has been altered and repackaged to further a goal of societal change. This is why Globalists so often dress Globalization as Globalism. Globalization is required for Globalism to become a reality. But Globalism is NOT a necessary prerequisite for Globalization.

 

 

… Just as Communists first seek to impose Socialism on their way to Communism, so do Globalists seek to turn Globalization into a stepping stone towards Globalism. Their goal is to convince citizens they are one and the same. Using Gradualism.

 

But there is a distinct difference – and an obstacle. Globalization can lead to benefits for all while still preserving the nation-state. Which means the concept of national identity stands firmly in the way of Globalism. In order to maintain national identity you must first maintain self-governance and full sovereignty. Globalism seeks to break national identity by subsuming national laws. Ultimately, preservation of national or sovereign law is the key to preventing Globalism.

 

In 1995, the Commission on Global Governance issued a report titled Our Global Neighborhood. The report advanced the view that nations are interdependent and called for a strengthened United Nations. The Commission made a standard definition of global governance stating that;

 

“Governance is the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and cooperative action may be taken. It includes formal institutions and regimes empowered to enforce compliance, as well as informal arrangements that people and institutions either have agreed to or perceive to be in their interest…It is our firm conclusion that the United Nations must continue to play a central role in global governance.”

 

It was the U.N.’s first real published step towards World Governance. Towards Globalism.

 

 

… Of particular note is the UN’s focus and treatment of Israel. Since the creation of the UN’s Human Rights Council in 2006, there have been 121 condemnations of nations for human rights violations. Of these, 62 condemnations were of Israel. Condemnations for the rest of the world’s nations combined equaled 59.

 

Corruption, fraud and mismanagement in U.N. procurement have been ongoing since the organization’s creation.

 

 

How is “piercing the shell of state sovereignty” accomplished? It is done slowly and incrementally. It is done through division – by undermining society through created rifts. It is accomplished through the application of Political Correctness. Society is slowly fractured into divisions of class, race and gender. Sub-groups are created within these divisions to further enhance societal stress. By lessening national identity the process of usurping national sovereignty becomes easier. There is a reason why George Soros, the self-avowed billionaire globalist, funds 150 different progressive organizations through his Open Society Foundation. Groups like the ACLU, Black Lives Matter, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), Human Rights Campaign, La Raza and the Women’s March. More importantly, this is why Globalists are in favor of unlimited immigration – and the national strife and divisions it creates.

 

… THIS MAY SEEM A LONG QUOTE BUT THE ESSAY IS MUCH LONGER AND WORTHY TO BE READ

 

I used a lot of posting space to understand the influence of Leftist Globalist Multiculturalism in the United Nations. The other influence in the UN is from Muslim dominated nations committed to Islamic Thought.

 

A rational person would think or wonder: How in the world can Marxist oriented Globalist Multiculturalism and those committed to Islamic thought be on the same page?

 

The simplistic answer is both concepts seek a global New World Order by dismantling the Old World Order.

 

The Old World Order is currently dominated a Western Christian Heritage that has developed governing institutions related to various forms of Representative Democracy. For clarity: Not absolute Democracy which degenerates into mob rule which is its own form of despotism. At present, the American Republic form of governance is the best paradigm of Representative Democracy.

 

The American Republic is the ideological enemy Globalist Multiculturalism and Islamic Thought.

 

What in the essence of the traditional sovereign American Republic bugs the crap out of Islamic Thought? For brevity’s sake here is a quick (meaning not exhaustive) comparison between Islam and guarantees in the U.S. Constitution courtesy of Bill Federer at WND:

 

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the “free exercise” of religion, yet Mohammad said “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him.” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, Book 84, No. 57). The Quran also states in Sura 4:89 “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take hold of them and kill them wherever you find them.”

 

The First Amendment states Congress shall not abridge “the freedom of speech,” yet Islamic law enforces dhimmi status on non-Muslims, prohibiting them from observing their religious practices publicly, raising their voices during prayer, ringing church bells or say anything considered “insulting to Islam.” Islamic law relegates non-Muslims to “dhimmi” status, where they are not to propagate their customs among Muslims and cannot display a cross, Christmas decorations, or the Star of David.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away “the right of the people to peaceably assemble,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot repair places of worship or build new ones, they must allow Muslims to participate in their private meetings, they cannot bring their dead near the graveyards of Muslims or mourn their dead loudly.

 

The First Amendment states Congress cannot take away the right of the people “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to harbor any hostility towards the Islamic state or give comfort to those who disagree with Islamic government.

 

The Second Amendment states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” yet Islamic law states non-Muslims cannot possess arms, swords or weapons of any kind.

 

The Third Amendment states one cannot be forced to “quarter” someone in their house, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims must entertain and feed for three days any Muslim who wants to stay in their home, and for a longer period if the Muslim falls ill, and they cannot prevent Muslim travelers from staying in their places of worship.

 

The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures,” yet Islamic law states if a non-Muslim rides on a horse with a saddle and bridle, the horse can be taken away.

 

The Fifth Amendment states that “no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime … without due process of law,” yet Mohammad said “No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir (infidel).” (Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, No. 50).

 

The Sixth Amendment guarantees a “public trial by an impartial jury” and the Seventh Amendment states “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,” yet Islamic law does not give non-Muslims equal legal standing with Muslims, even prohibiting them from testifying in court against Muslims.

 

The Eighth Amendment states there shall be no “cruel and unusual punishments inflicted,” yet the Quran states: “Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done – a deterrent from Allah.” (Sura 5:38) A woman who has been raped is also punished “with a hundred stripes.” (Sura 24:2) Women can be beaten: “If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them” (Sura 4:34). Honor killings of wives and daughters who have embarrassed their families have been reported by the United Nations in Muslim populations of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Yemen and increasing in Western nations.

 

The 13th Amendment states there shall be no “slavery or involuntary servitude,” yet the Quran accommodates slavery as Mohammad owned slaves.

 

The 14th Amendment guarantees citizens “equal protection of the laws,” yet the Quran does not consider Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims as equal to Muslims before the law. Referring to Jews as “the People of the Book,” Mohammad said: “They are those whom Allah has cursed; who have been under his wrath; some of whom were turned into apes and swine” (Sura 5:60, 7:166, 2:65).

 

The 15th Amendment guarantees “the right of the citizens … to vote shall not be denied … on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,” yet strict interpretation of Islamic law does not allow voting, as democracy is considered people setting themselves in the place of Allah by making the laws.

 

The 16th Amendment has some similarities with Islamic law, as “Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived.” Mohammad said “Fight those who believe not in Allah … until they pay the jizya [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” (Sura 9:29)

 

The 18th Amendment [Blog Editor: Repealed by 21st Amendment] has some similarities with Islamic law, as “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors … for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

The 19th Amendment allows women to vote, yet in strict Islamic countries women cannot vote.

 

The 21st Amendment allows for the sale of liquor, yet Islamic law states non-Muslims are not to sell or drink wine and liquor openly. [Bold text by Blog Editor]

 

It is my humble opinion if the Globalist Multiculturalist Left and the Muslim World ended sovereignty nations, eradicated effective Representative Democracy and/or caused the demise of the American Republic; the Globalists and some kind of Muslim coalition would engage in a bloody war for global domination. You could count on genocides from both sides.

 

NOW! To the inspiration of these thoughts leading to global strife with unpredictable winners and losers. The Gatestone Institute has posted some news about how the United Nations intends to “War” on Free Speech at least as America knows it. Many UN speech restrictions have already affected Free Speech in the rest of the so-called Free World.

 

JRH 7/11/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support NCCR

*************************

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

By Judith Bergman

July 10, 2019 at 5:00 am

Gatestone Institute

 

  • In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down.

 

  • Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

  • Except the UN most definitely seeks to prohibit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the UN Global Compact on Migration, in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

  • In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech doescontain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible: “Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

  • The new action plan plays straight into the OIC’s decades-long attempts to ban criticism of Islam as ‘hate speech’. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

In January, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres commissioned “a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis,” and said that governments and institutions need “to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…” One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech. Pictured: Antonio Guterres. (Image source: Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

 

In January, United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, tasked his Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to “present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis”. Speaking at a press conference about the UN’s challenges for 2019, Guterres maintained, “The biggest challenge that governments and institutions face today is to show that we care — and to mobilize solutions that respond to people’s fears and anxieties with answers…”

 

One of those answers, Guterres appeared to suggest, is shutting down free speech.

 

“We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance. We hear troubling, hateful echoes of eras long past” Guterres said, “Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let’s never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights…”

 

Guterres added, “Words are not enough. We need to be effective in both asserting our universal values and in addressing the root causes of fear, mistrust, anxiety and anger. That is the key to bring people along in defence of those values that are under such grave threat today”.

 

In other words, forget everything about the free exchange of ideas: the UN feels that its ‘values’ are being threatened and those who criticize those values must therefore be shut down. Not only that, but — disingenuously — the UN is comparing dissent from its agendas with the rise of fascism and Nazism in the 1930s.

 

Now the action plan that Guterres spoke of in January is ready. On June 18, Guterres presented the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech:

 

“Hate speech is…an attack on tolerance, inclusion, diversity and the very essence of our human rights norms and principles,” Guterres said. He also wrote in an article on the subject, “To those who insist on using fear to divide communities, we must say: diversity is a richness, never a threat…We must never forget, after all, that each of us is an “other” to someone, somewhere”.

 

According to the action plan, “Hate is moving into the mainstream – in liberal democracies and authoritarian systems alike. And with each broken norm, the pillars of our common humanity are weakened”. The UN sees for itself a crucial role: “As a matter of principle, the United Nations must confront hate speech at every turn. Silence can signal indifference to bigotry and intolerance…”.

 

Naturally, the UN assures everyone that, “Addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law”.

 

Except the UN most definitely seeks to limit freedom of speech, especially the kind that challenges the UN’s agendas. This was evident with regard to the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration in which it was explicitly stated that public funding to “media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants” should be stopped.

 

Whatever constitutes intolerance, xenophobia, racism or discrimination was naturally left undefined, making the provision a convenient catchall for governments who wish to defund media that dissent from current political orthodoxy on migration.[1]

 

In contrast to the UN Global Migration compact, the UN’s action plan against hate speech does contain a definition of what the UN considers to be “hate” and it happens to be the broadest and vaguest of definitions possible:

 

“Any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor”. With a definition as broad as this, all speech could be labelled “hate”.

 

The action plan, “aims to give to the United Nations the room and the resources to address hate speech, which poses a threat to United Nations principles, values and programmes. Measures taken will be in line with international human rights norms and standards, in particular the right to freedom of opinion and expression. The objectives are twofold: Enhance UN efforts to address root causes and drivers of hate speech [and] enable effective UN responses to the impact of hate speech on societies”.

 

The UN makes it clear in the plan that it “will implement actions at global and country level, as well as enhance internal cooperation among relevant UN entities” to fight hate speech. It considers that “Tackling hate speech is the responsibility of all – governments, societies, the private sector” and it envisages “a new generation of digital citizens, empowered to recognize, reject and stand up to hate speech”. What a brave new world.

 

In the plan, the UN sets up a number of areas of priority. Initially, the UN will “need to know more to act effectively” and it will therefore let “relevant UN entities… recognize, monitor, collect data and analyze hate speech trends”. It will also seek to “adopt a common understanding of the root causes and drivers of hate speech in order to take relevant action to best address and/or mitigate its impact”. In addition, the UN will “identify and support actors who challenge hate speech”.

 

UN entities will also “implement human rights-centred measures which aim at countering retaliatory hate speech and escalation of violence” and “promote measures to ensure that the rights of victims are upheld, and their needs addressed, including through advocacy for remedies, access to justice and psychological counselling”.

 

Disturbingly, the UN plans to put pressure directly on media and influence children through education:

 

“The UN system should establish and strengthen partnerships with new and traditional media to address hate speech narratives and promote the values of tolerance, non-discrimination, pluralism, and freedom of opinion and expression” and “take action in formal and informal education to … promote the values and skills of Global Citizenship Education, and enhance Media and Information Literacy”.

 

The UN is acutely aware that it needs to leverage strategic partnerships with an array of global and local, governmental and private actors in order to reach its goal. “The UN should establish/strengthen partnerships with relevant stakeholders, including those working in the tech industry. Most of the meaningful action against hate speech will not be taken by the UN alone, but by governments, regional and multilateral organizations, private companies, media, religious and other civil society actors” the action plan notes. “UN entities,” it adds, “should also engage private sector actors, including social media companies, on steps they can take to support UN principles and action to address and counter hate speech, encouraging partnerships between government, industry and civil society”. The UN also says that, “upon request” it will “provide support to Member States in the field of capacity building and policy development to address hate speech.”

 

The action plan also reveals that the first concrete initiative is already planned. It is an “international conference on Education for Prevention with focus on addressing and countering Hate Speech which would involve Ministers of Education”.

 

The new action plan plays straight into the decades-long attempts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to ban criticism of Islam. In the wake of the launch of Guterres’ action plan, Pakistan has already presented a six-point plan “to address the new manifestations of racism and faith-based hatred, especially Islamophobia” at the United Nations headquarters. The presentation was organized by Pakistan along with Turkey, the Holy See and the UN.

 

According to news reports, the plan was proposed by Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Maleeha Lodhi at a session titled “Countering terrorism and other acts of violence based on religion or belief”.

 

“A particularly alarming development is the rise of Islamophobia which represents the recent manifestation of the age-old hatred that spawned anti-Semitism, racism, apartheid and many other forms of discrimination,” the ambassador said in her speech. She added, “My Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently again called for urgent action to counter Islamophobia, which is today the most prevalent expression of racism and hatred against ‘the other'”.

 

“We are fully committed to support the UN’s strategy on hate speech,” said the Pakistani ambassador, “This is a moment for all of us to come together to reverse the tide of hate and bigotry that threatens to undermine social solidarity and peaceful co-existence.”

 

In 2017, Facebook’s Vice President of Public Policy, Joel Kaplan, reportedly agreed to requests from Pakistan’s Interior Minister Nisar Ali Khan, to “remove fake accounts and explicit, hateful and provocative material that incites violence and terrorism” because “the entire Muslim Ummah was greatly disturbed and has serious concerns over the misuse of social media platforms to propagate blasphemous content”.

 

At the UN, Pakistan’s Ambassador Lodhi called for government interventions to fight hate speech, including national legislation, and reportedly “called for framing a more focused strategy to deal with the various expressions of Islamophobia. A ‘whole of government’ and a ‘whole of society’ approach was needed. In this regard, the Pakistani envoy urged the secretary-general to engage with a wide range of actors, including governments, civil society and social media companies to take action and stop social media users being funneled into online sources of radicalization”.

 

The UN’s all-out war on free speech is on.

 

Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

 

NOTES:

 

[1] According to Objective 17 of the UN Global Compact on migration, member states commit to: “Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.” [Emphasis added.]

____________________

The UN, Globalist Multiculturalism & Islam One World Despotism

John R. Houk

© July 11, 2019

___________________

UN Launches All-out War on Free Speech

 

© 2019 Gatestone Institute. All rights reserved. The articles printed here do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editors or of Gatestone Institute. No part of the Gatestone website or any of its contents may be reproduced, copied or modified, without the prior written consent of Gatestone Institute. [Blog Editor: Permission was not acquired to cross post. Upon request the cross post will be removed.]

 

 

One Step Too Far


un-agenda-2030

The United Nations (UN) has been unjustifiably harsh to the Jewish State of Israel for decades. The UN has taken up the cause of Muslim nations that are closer than despotism than a democratic republic process of governing. As most Americans I am a supporter of Israel’s existence unlike most Muslims, especially the Muslim Arabs that have adopted the name Palestinian.

 

The UN hatred of Israel is good enough for me for America to pull out of the UN and defund our support for that now very crooked international body. AND YET there are many more reasons for the USA to leave the UN. Justin Smith goes over some of those reasons in which the UN has an agenda to fray the sovereign borders of all nations.

 

JRH 11/18/17

Please Support NCCR

***************

One Step Too Far

Repeal the United Nations Participation Act 

 

By Justin O. Smith

Sent 1/16/2017 7:17 AM

 

One more day should not pass before the United States Congress votes to immediately halt all funding to the United Nations and end our membership in the U.N., largely comprised of our enemies, which falsely presents itself as an organization dedicated to worldwide freedom, liberty and “social justice” for all. Not only does the U.N. support terrorism, it is anti-American and anti-Israeli, and through U.N. schemes, like Agenda 2030 and “sustainable development”, the U.N. promotes tyranny and the subversion of any mechanism for freedom, such as our U.S. Constitution, thus promoting the suppression of the unalienable rights of all mankind.

 

The U.N. claims that it seeks to create a peaceful world and protect human rights, and yet, many of the world’s most troublesome and violent nations and human rights violators — Russia, China, Indonesia, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Cuba — sit on the U.N. Human Rights Council. One should recall that the United States was removed from the U.N. Human Rights High Commission in 2001, in retaliation for the U.S.’s defense of Israel, an all-time high point for U.N. hostility towards the U.S.

 

U.S. taxpayers’ money far too often is placed against American values and interests, whenever the United States gives it to the U.N. This occurs because the U.N. majority of votes is held by the undemocratic 57 member nations of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the 120 member Non-Aligned Movement, chaired by Iran from 2012 to 2015. And so, the U.N.’s World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, heavily funded by the U.S., was able to pass dual-use nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, without batting an eye.

 

Did this promote peace? And does arming and supplying Hamas terrorists promote peace?

 

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees has embedded itself with Hamas terrorists, who have formed close ties with the Islamic State over the past two years, and rocket arsenals have been found numerous times in UNRWA’s U.S. funded schools. UNRWA-provided construction materials are used in Hamas tunnels, which are staging areas for terrorist attacks that kill innocent Israeli citizens; and, the Leftist Obama administration must tacitly approve of this Palestinian initiative, since it has sent $380 million annually to the UNRWA.

 

In 2011, did the Durban III Conference in New York and the U.N. legitimization of the Palestinian recognition initiative promote peace or an OIC agenda?

 

Shortly after Durban III, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton noted: “You just don’t read about it, you just don’t hear about it in the media. But the pervasiveness of the anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism is there as an undercurrent — all the time.”

 

And if the December 23rd, 2016 UN Resolution 2334 is not one step too far for the American people, just how far will we go with the U.N.’s madness? Not much further, I suspect, especially once one looks at the U.N. Resolution 16/18, the Small Arms Treaty and Agenda 2030.

 

With the treason gene dancing nimbly through her mind daily in December 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton colluded with the 57 Islamic nations of the OIC to abrogate the First Amendment. They met in New York City to formulate a strategy that would convince the U.S. Senate to ratify U.N. Resolution 16/18, which criminalizes any criticism of Islam, essentially criminalizing free speech and a bedrock of our U.S. Constitution and our American heritage.

 

The Small Arms Treaty, adopted in April 2013, is another anti-American U.N. initiative aimed at the Second Amendment. It prohibits exporting conventional weapons, including personal firearms, to nations with poor human rights records. Since U.N. officials regularly fabricate “human rights abuses” against the U.S., this “treaty” would be a strong nuisance, if applied against us. Registration of all firearm imports down to the final purchaser is also demanded, which would be used as the next step towards private firearms confiscation and heavily resisted in America.

 

The U.N. currently strives to implement Agenda 2030, with its expected $3 to $5 trillion annual price-tag, and its undisguised plan for global socialism and fascism [i.e. corporatism]. Goal Ten calls on U.N. members and every single person worldwide to “reduce inequality within and among countries”, which can only be made possible, according to the U.N., “if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed”. Basically, this confiscates Western wealth, shrinks their economies through Big Government policies and “redistributes” [gives] their money to authoritarian/ totalitarian Third World regimes, rather than their impoverished victims, keeping the tyrants in power.

 

Agenda 2030’s premise that the world’s current rate of consumption is “unsustainable” is based on fallacies straight out of Malthusian philosophy. The West does not have to reduce their consumption of everything — meat, cars, electrical appliances, convenience foods, air-conditioning, or expansive and modest housing — as suggest by U.N. globalists, in order that poor countries can have more and the world can achieve a “sustainable” balance. All that is required is keeping the independent spirit of freedom alive that opens the creative and innovative minds of men, which has always led to a prosperous reality.

 

Agenda 2030 will be forced on all the citizens of nations willing to use government coercion. Nowhere does it protect individual rights and the unalienable rights granted to all men by our Creator. Its ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ absolutely denies individuals parental control over their children and the right to self-defense.

 

Thankfully, U.N. treaties, including the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, signed by any U.S. President do not hold any enforceable weight of law, even through “customary international law”, without the U.S. Senate’s imprimatur and a two-thirds majority vote, contrary to assertions by globalists, American leftists and Obama’s State Department. And even then, the U.S. Constitution cannot be superseded by international law.

 

Is it any wonder that former U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced legislation every year he was in Congress to withdraw our membership in the U.N.?

 

All Americans, who wish to preserve freedom and liberty for their children’s children and beyond, must eradicate the U.N.’s clear and present danger to the sovereignty and survival of the United States. We must fervently urge President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress to totally repeal the United Nations Participation Act of 1945 and expel the U.N. from the United States completely, releasing the $7.7 billion wasted on the U.N.’s validation of tyrants for better uses in America. And from this day ’til the end of time, let America stand only with those nations that are willing to bear any burden and fight the good fight against any foe to assure that future generations live in Freedom and Liberty.

 

By Justin O Smith

_______________

Edited by John R. Houk

Source links are by the Editor.

 

© Justin O. Smith

Newbill on Conspiracy, Counterjihad and Corruption


bho-terrorism-no-negotiation-but-finance

Here are some collected emails from Tony Newbill examining national/global conspiracies, Counterjihad issues that involves U.S. government collusion (Hello Barack & Crooked Hillary) and government corruption.

 

JRH 9/23/16

Please Support NCCR

****************

Newbill on Conspiracy, Counterjihad and Corruption

Tony Newbill

Posted on September 23, 2016

 

The Voters need to ask: How is the Government projecting a 260 million population reduction in the USA by 2025?

8/23/2016 11:48 PM

 

And I would Screen shot this site and save this information!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

http://www.deagel.com/country/United-States-of-America_c0001.aspx

 

Forecast 2025 —                                                         — Rank — %

 

Population:                        61 million                         — 19    —     0.9

Density:                           6 inhabitants / sq. km. – 170 –  12.2

Gross Domestic Product:  $949 billion                    — 11 —       1.7

GDP per capita:                 $15,517                           — 49 —     192 

Purchase Power Parity:   $10,345                          — 78 —      111 

Military Budget:                $8.2 billion                   — 22 —           0.9

 

READ ENTIRETY (Deagel United States of America [Chart])

 

+++

This is coming to the USA if Hillary Clinton gets elected POTUS

8/24/2016 8:52 AM

 

This is coming to the USA if Hillary Clinton gets elected POTUS, because the Muslim Brotherhood’s Insider aid to Clinton wants this country for themselves and ISIS was created by the Insiders in our DoD!!!!!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/175105516198463/permalink/293511281024552/?comment_id=293652361010444&notif_t=group_comment_reply&notif_id=1472045897637872

 

Tommy Tunes Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria

 

VIDEO: Reality Check: Proof U.S. Government Wanted ISIS To Emerge In Syria

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1aDciHCejA

 

Posted by Ben Swann

Published on Nov 19, 2015

 

There is so much debate over how the U.S. and other nations will stop ISIS but can these leaders be trusted? Ben Swann exposes secret DOD documents that prove the U.S. wanted ISIS to emerge in Syria.

 

+++

OK so how do we know if these LOST TAXPAYER FUNDS ….

8/24/2016 10:20 AM

 

OK, so how do we know if these LOST TAXPAYER FUNDS were not used in bribes to buy U.S. and NATO Positions within Middle Eastern countries? And how do we know or not if the $400 million [Blog Editor Update: $1.7 Billion] recently given to Iran has not went to fund our enemies. Plus, as the funds were allocated how much of a cut did people involved in these transactions pocket?????

 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pentagon-sloppy-bookkeeping-means-6-091500172.html

 

Pentagon’s Sloppy Bookkeeping Means $6.5 Trillion Can’t Pass an Audit

 

The Defense Department over the years has been notorious for its lax accounting practices. The Pentagon has never completed an audit of how they actually spend the trillions of dollars on wars, equipment, personnel, housing, healthcare and procurements.

 

An increasingly impatient Congress has demanded that the Army achieve “audit readiness” for the first time by Sept. 30, 2017, so that lawmakers can get a better handle on military spending. But Pentagon watchdogs think that may be mission impossible, and for good reason.

 

A Department of Defense inspector general’s report released last week offered a jaw-dropping insight into just how bad the military’s auditing system is.

 

The Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the behemoth Indianapolis-based agency that provides finance and accounting services for the Pentagon’s civilian and military members, could not provide adequate documentation for $6.5 trillion worth of year-end adjustments to Army general fund transactions and data.

 

The DFAS has the sole responsibility for paying all DOD military and personnel, retirees and annuitants, along with Pentagon contractors and vendors. The agency is also in charge of electronic government initiatives, including within the Executive Office of the President, the Department of Energy and the Departing of Veterans Affairs.

 

There’s nothing in the new IG’s report to suggest that anyone has misplaced or absconded with large sums of money. Rather, the agency has done an incompetent job of providing written authorization for every one of their transactions – so-called “journal vouchers” that READ THE REST (Pentagon’s Sloppy Bookkeeping Means $6.5 Trillion Can’t Pass an Audit; By The Fiscal Times; Yahoo Finance; 7/31/16)

 

+++

This tells us why they are looking at depopulation of the planet

8/24/2016 12:34 PM

 

http://energyskeptic.com/

 

[Blog Editor: It appears to me the above link is updated on a continuous basis. I’ll cross post an excerpt from the most recent update as of me taking a look]

 

Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge

 

Methane hydrate apocalypse? Maybe not…

Posted on September 20, 2016 by energyskeptic

 

[ I don’t think there’s enough evidence yet to decide for sure there won’t be a gas hydrate apocalypse, but here’s some evidence that this might not happen. Even Benton, who wrote “When Life Nearly Died” didn’t pin the mass murderer of the Permian extinction on gas hydrates.

 

I’ve also read Peter Ward’s “Under a Green Sky” and many other books and peer-reviewed articles, and will continue to try to follow the mystery of extinction events and who the mass murderers were.

 

Until then, here are some of the articles I’ve run across that cast some doubt on this being a sure thing, though clearly more research needs to be done.

 

There’s also the hope that peak oil, which makes all other resources available, including coal, natural gas and oil itself, prevent us from going extinct as energy reduces population back to about 1 billion or so (whatever it was before fossil fuels replaced wood and muscle power) and we READ THE REST

 

http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/100873/alice-friedemann-when-trucks-stop-running

 

Alice Friedemann is a transportation expert sounding the alarm on the unsustainable nature of our modern trucking system, which is critical for delivering goods where they need to be, when they need to be, in our just-in-time economy.

 

The world’s trucking fleet is remarkably dependent on petroleum and, for a number of reasons she outlines in this interview, is not feasibly able to shift over to electricity or other alternative fuels.

 

To warn of the risks and consequences of a collapse in trucking, she founded EnergySkeptic.com and authored the book When The Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation. And while unlikely, her projected aftermath of a sudden complete shutdown of the trucking fleet is sobering, revealing just how dependent we are:

 

Within a week, in roughly this order, grocery stores would be out of dairy and other items that are delivered many times a day. And by the week, the shelves would be empty.

Hospitals, pharmacies, factories, and many other businesses also get several deliveries a day, and they’d be running out of stuff the first day.

And the second day, there’s be panic and hoarding. And restaurants, pharmacies would close. ATM’s would be out of money. Construction would stop. There’d be increasing layoffs. Increasing enormous amounts of trash not getting picked up, 685,000 tons a day. Service stations would be closed. Very few people would be working. And the livestock would start to be hungry from lack of feed deliveries.

Then within two weeks, clean water supplies would run out. Within four weeks to eight weeks, there wouldn’t be coal delivered to power plants and electricity would start shutting down. And when that happened, about a quarter of our pipelines use electricity, and so natural gas plants wouldn’t be fed natural gas and they’d start shutting down.

It’s a big interdependent system. That’s part of the problem. It’s like Liebig’s Law of the Minimum. A plant needs about 20 READ OR LISTEN TO THE REST (Alice Friedemann: When The Trucks Stop Running: The modern trucking fleet is living on borrowed time; By Adam Taggart; Peak Prosperity; 8/21/16 11:59 AM)

 

+++

Here is the Stealth from within……

8/26/2016 3:35 PM

 

http://www.freedompost.org/islam/deception/civilization-jihad-aka-stealth-jihad.html

 

Civilization Jihad aka Stealth Jihad

 

  1. Origins of Civilization Jihad (Stealth Jihad)

 

August 2004, an alert Maryland Transportation Authority Police officer observed a woman wearing traditional Islamic garb videotaping the support structures of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge, and conducted a traffic stop. The driver was Ismail Elbarasse and detained on an outstanding material witness warrant issued in Chicago in connection with fundraising for Hamas. In the basement of his home in Annandale, VA, a hidden sub-basement was found, containing 80 banker boxes of the archives of the Muslim Brotherhood in North America. One of the most important of these documents was the Muslim Brotherhood’s strategic plan for the United States and was entitled, “An Explanatory Memorandum On The General Strategic Goal For The Group In North America” (English version or Arabic version), written in May 1991 primarily by Mohamed Akram, a former director of the United Association of Studies and Research (UASR), a Hamas front that was based in Northern Virginia from 1991 to 2004. UASR, an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorist finance trial case that this document was entered into evidence, was headed by Ahmed Yousef who now serves as political advisor to head of Hamas in Gaza, Ismail Haniya.

 

VIDEO: Muslim Brotherhood’s plan & Obama connection exposed (1:29:54)

 

READ THE REST (Civilization Jihad aka Stealth Jihad; Freedom Post)

 

+++

Sharia Law is Totalitarianism!!!!!!!!!

8/28/2016 12:20 PM  

 

LOOK how they are Taking over with TAXPAYER MONEY US Education POLICY!!!!!!!!

 

Film Warns of Education Caliphate

Documentary filmmaker goes in depth on the Gulen Movement charter schools in America

https://mountainrepublic.net/2016/08/28/film-warns-of-education-caliphate/#comment-20012

 

VIDEO: https://youtu.be/W6E8rVWlMuM

 

Posted by The Alex Jones Channel

Published on Aug 26, 2016

What if the Church of Scientology was able to get $500 MILLION PER YEAR in taxpayer money to educate children? That’s what an Islamic cult, the Gulen Movement, gets now. Filmmaker Mark Hall talks about his documentary, “Killing Ed”, that exposes crony capitalism and corruption in Charter Schools and the slander & censorship it has faced.

Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with READ THE REST

 

 

What if the Church of Scientology was able to get $500 MILLION PER YEAR in taxpayer money to educate children?

 

That’s what an Islamic cult, the Gulen Movement, gets now.

 

Filmmaker Mark Hall talks about his documentary, “Killing Ed,” that exposes crony capitalism and corruption in Charter Schools, and the slander and censorship it has faced.

 

VIDEO: Film Exposes Islamic Takeover Of US Schools

 

Posted by The Alex Jones Channel

Published on Aug 26, 2016

The Islamic State may be more subtle in America than in Syria, using money to gain influence, establish schools and brainwash the next generation.

Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we’re READ THE REST

 

(Film Warns of Education Caliphate; By Mountain Republic; 8/28/16)

 

And check this CRAZY OUT!!!!!!    https://www.facebook.com/OfficialBritainFirst/videos/1115117425300184/

 

Britain First

August 28 at 8:06am

 

SHOCKING: Muslim blood RITUAL! coming to a street NEAR YOU!

 

For more explosive content like this please like Britain First

 

VIDEO: SHOCKING- Muslim blood RITUAL- coming to a street NEAR YOU

 

And this is NOT Constitutional either!!!!  Stated multiple Times (Totalitarian) is against the structures of America, and against its governing system. These people that support Totalitarianism are NOT to be permitted entry to the United States :: See page 185 Chapter 2 section 212 Article (28) subpart (D)…:

 

 http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/66%20stat%20163.pdf

public-law-414-june-27-1952-pg-185-chapter-2-section-212-article-28-subpart-d

This is what we will get with Hillary Clinton as POTUS and Mr. Trump needs to POUND on this!!!!!! The Democrats have become totalitarian in their sense of how the USA should be, so they can implement their Climate Change Anti-Human restrictive regulatory ambitions. Mr. Trump needs to HOUND the AIRWAVES with this debate!!!!!!!!!  

 

Here is a segment of the FrontPageMag story on Hillary is trying to bring Sharia Law and the US Constitution together, oh my!!!!

 

  “As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton affirmed the Obama Administration’s support for this campaign on July 15, 2011, when she gave an address on the freedom of speech at an OIC [i.e. Organization of Islamic Cooperation] conference on Combating Religious Intolerance.

 

“Together,” she said, “we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of expression and we are pursuing a new approach.”

 

But how could both be protected? Ihsanoglu [Ekmeleddin İhsanoğlu] offered the answer: criminalizing what he considered to be hatred and incitement to violence. “We cannot and must not ignore the implications of hate speech and incitement of discrimination and violence.” But in restricting the freedom of speech, Clinton had a First Amendment to deal with, and so in place of legal restrictions on criticizing Islam, she suggested “old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don’t feel that they have the support to do what we abhor.” She held a lengthy closed-door meeting with Ihsanoglu in December 2011 to facilitate the adoption of measures that would advance the OIC’s anti-free speech agenda, which amounted to an attempt to impose Sharia blasphemy laws upon the West. But what agreements she and Ihsanoglu made, if any, have never been disclosed. Hillary’s contact with Ihsanoglu was initiated by Gulen’s associate Ozkok. Read more at these links:

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263536/hillarys-imam-robert-spencer 

 

We need to POUND this HOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Lots or material on this ANTI-American Topic:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/10/for-the-left-totalitarianism-is-a-feature-not-a-bug/ 

 

I like to think of myself as a pioneer in warning about the rise of the New Totalitarianism in America, which is really not much different than the old totalitarianism. The most important difference is that the new breed is better at hypnotizing itself into thinking they’re good-hearted, compassionate souls who just want the best for everyone… except, of course, the dissenters they grind beneath their jackboots.

 

 

Push them harder, and they’ll claim their seething hatred for the Christian bakers – their totalitarian urge to use the power of the State to personally destroy these innocent people – isn’t a black mark against their “compassion” and “tolerance,” because those bakers aren’t really people at all, at least not in the same sense that loving gay couples who demand cakes for READ THE REST (For the Left, Totalitarianism Is a Feature, Not a Bug; By JOHN HAYWARD; Breitbart; 7/10/15)

 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2015/07/08/examples_of_the_new_totalitarianism

 

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

 

RUSH: Now I want to go back to the rest of the new totalitarian piece and give you some examples of it.  And it has been suggested to me that I ask all of you to start paying attention to examples of this that you encounter. Not necessarily things that happen to you, but things that you see in the news, maybe where you live or just anywhere.  Just make a note of it, and become aware of it.  It’s one thing to have this new totalitarianism described to you.  By the way, it’s not new.  The real brilliance of this piece is like Angelo Codevilla’s piece on the ruling class.

 

 

It just infuriates them because the key element of totalitarianism, not only will you be defeated by them, but in time you will love them, and you will agree with them, and you will support them, and you will actively join them.  And you will not disagree.  That is what we are in the midst of seeing. …

 

 

“For a fair number of people in what’s supposed to be a democracy, ‘winning’ in any normal political sense simply isn’t enough. They are not really trying to capture something as pedestrian as political equality, nor are they satisfied if they get it.” They claim that’s what they’re about.  Equality.  They’re not about equality at all.  They’re about total domination.

 

 

… That’s why the Republicans have fallen into a huge trap on all of this.  Bipartisanship.  They are not bipartisan.  Somebody give me an example of left-wing bipartisanship.  They don’t even define it the way we do.  Bipartisanship, as they define it, as in we cave on our core beliefs and agree with them.  That is bipartisanship.  There is no compromise.

 

 

So, folks, it’s an all-out assault on the criminal justice system and an attempt, which will not stop, to have the entire Grand Jury system found corrupt, and if they could get rid of it. And why?  Because they didn’t get the result.  They did not prevail.  There are people who disagree with them, and that will not be tolerated.  People who disagree with them, whether they are high judges, whether they are prosecutors, whether they are average ordinary every day citizens, it will not be tolerated.

 

 

“A new document reveals that the Department of Justice, the IRS, and the FBI colluded to prosecute Barack Obama opponents.”  This is from Judicial Watch.  Involves Lois Lerner.  Just the headlines, folks: “New Docs Reveal DOJ, IRS, and FBI Colluding to Prosecute Obama Opponents.” These are the 501(c)(3)s that the conservative fundraising group is asking for tax-exempt status.  Judicial Watch has found evidence that the DOJ, the IRS, the FBI were colluding to prosecute them out of existence.

 

END TRANSCRIPT READ ENTIRETY (Examples of the New Totalitarianism; Transcript of Rush Limbaugh Show; 7/8/15)

 

__________________

Edited by John R. Houk

Text or links enclosed by brackets are by the Editor.

 

© Tony Newbill

Catastrophic Failure. And we keep going


I am on the email list of the World Truth Summit which is organized by Elsa Schieder of Canada. When I get an update I find interesting I like to cross post for my blog readers to digest. Elsa has sent out one such update.

Briefly for those who don’t know, the World Truth Summit gathers prominent Counterjihad experts from the realms of academia, journalism, blogging, politicians and so on. Elsa then provides provides a forum for a video Counterjihad seminar or interview.

This latest update focuses on the Stephen Coughlin book “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad”. Stephen Coughlin became a bit controversial even before Obama became President in that he was rather unceremoniously released from his Intelligence/Pentagon job that was prominent to inform the U.S. military, Executive Branch Intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies as well as many politicians involved with Congress. Coughlin was the go-to guy for info on what makes Islam and Islamic terrorists tick.

Coughlin ran into problems when prominent Muslims in the same government affiliations began to protest Coughlin’s frank truth telling that obviously did not make Islam look like a religion of peace. Essentially he was fired by simply not renewing his employment contract.

Coughlin penned this in relation to his very important book which I found at Unconstrained Analytics:

 

The time has come to present this case to the American people.

 

I hope to offer to the reader the same quality of information and analysis that has been presented to national security professionals and which has been studiously ignored.

 

  • I will provide the necessary citations to Islamic law, both historical and contemporary, from books written in English for Muslim consumers of Islamic law (also called shariah), and will explain the key principles for interpreting these laws, particularly as they relate to non-Muslims and jihad.

 

  • We will go through, in detail, the Islamic legal concept of abrogation and how it impacts the actions of Muslims who have chosen to wage jihad.

 

  • We will examine the impact of Islamic scholar and Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb, and how his understanding of abrogation led to what I call “The Milestone Process,” which guides the performance of jihad for our enemies in the War on Terror.

 

  • We will discuss what is called the “Islamic Movement” and how the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and other groups oriented on the Milestone Process view themselves as unified by varying degrees against us.

 

  • We’ll examine the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation and see how their understanding of themselves as a kind of “Proto-Caliphate” may be accurate, even though our decision makers don’t even know they exist.

 

  • With this understanding of the rules and the players achieved, we’ll discuss how each of these groups works in accordance with Islamic law as they understand it, to the great detriment of those who fail to recognize the threat they pose.

 

  • We’ll examine the postmodern world of American national security policymaking, where fidelity to political correctness, the need for “balance,” and standards that put assumptions and social science theories before facts have left us dangerously exposed.

 

  • And we will examine how our failure to understand these factors has repeatedly led to tragedy and real loss of life, leaving America vulnerable to those who wish to destroy us.

 

I hope to show that returning to traditional standards of threat analysis—bolstered by common-sense professional standards and grounded in the obligations we have to support and defend the Constitution—will enable us once again to know our enemies and develop methods to defeat them. (Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad; By Stephen Coughlin; Unconstrained Analytics)

 

And now to the World Truth Summit update.

JRH 3/9/16

Please Support NCCR

**********************

Catastrophic Failure. And we keep going

By Elsa Schieder

Sent: Mar 6, 2016 at 10:13 AM

Email From: World Truth Summit

Do I have anything to say that I haven’t said before?

There’s a book I’ll recommend: Stephen Coughlin’s Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

The general outline has nothing new – for example, you’re not allowed to change anything from the Quran. Almost everyone knows that. But there are masses of details I didn’t know – such as, Islam has a triple lock system, like a maximum security prison. Lock one (as stated): if it’s in the Quran, and not abrogated, that’s the way things have to be forever. Lock two: if it’s become part of Sharia, whether or not it’s in the Quran, it must stand forever. Lock three: if Islamic scholars have agreed on something, whether or not it’s in the Quran or in Sharia, it must never be re-opened for questioning.

The first lock is enough to convince me that Islam is not open to reform – because to do so, you go against the Quran, and the punishment for that is murder. But then, two more locks. Heavy metal doors clang shut.

How do I feel about the triple-lock system? It’s good stuff to know – or we invite even more catastrophic failure.

What am I getting from Catastrophic Failure? Most of the time I act from knowing, with my head, that it’s vital to act against Islamization in its many forms. Reading this book makes me feel, on a gut level, how vital it is to do all we can.

How does Coughlin keep going, I also wonder. Before Obama, he was briefing top people in the American military, FBI, CIA. Now he’s an outsider – and he has kept going, doing, reaching anyone he can – with online videos, speaking engagements, and his powerful book.

It’s so important to be able to keep going, when the forces against us are gaining ground, sometimes massively – as has happened in Europe this past year with the mass influx of Islamics – and as is currently happening in Canada with the new pro-Islam prime minister.

This isn’t a story – like Star Wars, where we know that, somehow or other, all will be well in the end (until the next episode). This is life. The outcome isn’t set in stone. Even what happens next isn’t set in stone. Lots of surprises along the way – including good ones, like the emergence of Trump.

Anyway, today, not much to say. Except, as always, that it’s time to continue, to keep going and doing.

All the best to all of us who care and dare,

Elsa

PS. If you’re anywhere near Montreal on Wednesday, March 9th, ACT for Canada is bringing in Paul Weston, a rising politician of a mainstream political party in England concerned with terrorist threats and mass migration. He was arrested in 2014 for quoting a passage from Winston Churchill’s book, The River War. How could that be? Churchill did not have a great opinion of Islam.

Time: 7:30 p.m. sharp

Location: Ruby Foos Restaurant

Ticket price: $20.00; free for students

For further information, contact info@actforcanada.ca

Paul Weston

PPS. More about Stephen Coughlin. I first heard of Stephen Coughlin through a video on the OIC. The OIC? What was that? I had no idea. I learned a lot. We all need to know about it:

 

The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkAZUvQAzkc

VIDEO: Stephen Coughlin, Part 5: The Role of the OIC in Enforcing Islamic Law

 

And, in case you don’t know about the ‘Milestones’ Process:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t98WRrOPj2s

VIDEO: Stephen Coughlin, Part 3: Abrogation & the ‘Milestones’ Process

 

Also, Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMQ0B2ivjPs

VIDEO: Stephen Coughlin, Part 4: Muslim Brotherhood, Arab Spring & the ‘Milestones’ Process

 

Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsArto3UVT0

VIDEO: Stephen Coughlin, Part 2: Understanding the War on Terror Through Islamic Law

 

Then, an interview with Stephen Coughlin:

http://vladtepesblog.com/2015/09/11/stephen-coughlin/

 

Stephen Coughlin

AND HERE IS A BRILLIANT VIDEO ON INFILTRATION – SOVIET INFILTRATION, BUT MUCH RELEVANCE FOR US:

 

Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

VIDEO: Yuri Bezmenov: Deception Was My Job (Complete)

 

Finally, in case you feel up to tacking Stephen Coughlin’s book:

Catastrophic Failure book jacket

The words in the corner, by the way:

Banned by the White House.

PPPS. For lots more, from the many times I had a lot to say, come to:

http://ElsasEmporium.com

____________________

Edited by John R. Houk

© Elsa Schieder

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights


HRC on Free Speech Punishment

 

Apparently Canada is growing closer and closer to the EU rule of law paradigm of punishing Free Speech that is truthful in its criticism of Islam due to the Left thinking of multicultural diversity. Elsa Schieder continues her report on the issue which follows her report on Canadian Free Speech persecution of Ezra Levant.

 

(To my fellow Americans: In case you are unaware I’m letting you know that Canada is officially a bi-lingual nation. Both English and French are the official languages of Canada. This largely due to Britain conquering French Canada in the 1700s from France. French Canadians have proudly retained their culture primarily in the Province of Quebec. This explains the French references used by Elsa that Canada is currently dealing with.)

 

JRH 12/8/14

Please Support NCCR

************************

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

 

By Elsa Schieder

Sent: 12/7/2014 8:42 PM

World Truth Summit Update

 

Last week I wrote about a judgment, in Canada, against Ezra Levant.

 

This week, there’s the threat of another attack on freedom of speech in Canada. It’s from the “commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse” – the commission of human rights and youth rights. A nice name. But the head of the commission is proposing legislation to further curb freedom of speech. There’s already lots of legislation in place. The additional legislation would go further: one could make a complaint even if one isn’t any particular victim and can’t show that any particular person has been hurt. (In French, “on n’a pas besoin d’être une victime particularisée et de le démontrer.”)

 

For those of you who speak French, here’s a link, including to an interview with the head of the commission:

 

http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html

***[Blog Editor: I posting the Google Translation to the French in the above link. There is a video which I am not including largely because I do not speak French. If you speak French and wish to listen, you’ll have to use the above link.]

 

I listened to the interview and once more felt: the world has gone upside down. “Anything you say may be used against you.” Watch out!

 

As usual, there’s no indication that, if the legislation goes through, those making the charges will need to pay anything, even if charges are shown to be frivolous, ungrounded, or even malicious. On the other hand, those defending themselves against charges will need to pay.

 

“Oh Canada, glorious and free.” Those words are part of the Canadian national anthem. Not appropriate with the legislation which is already in place, and even less appropriate with the proposed further legislation against freedom of speech.

 

 

Then, in case any of you should feel like wishing someone else Merry Christmas, here is Islamic cleric Abu Musaab Akkar:

 

“Saying ‘Merry Christmas’ is worse than fornication, drinking alcohol, and killing someone.”

 

His comments are available in many places, including:

 

http://shoebat.com/2014/12/04/according-muslim-saying-merry-christmas-worse-committing-murder/ 

 

Of course, according to the politically correct, all cultures are equal (including the one of the above cleric) and who are we to judge? It seems we are to ignore that the cleric is judging that saying Merry Christmas is worse than killing someone. But perhaps, in the weird world of the politically correct, the cleric is somehow entitled to judge, while for some inexplicable reason, we are not.

 

What do we do? How to show the absurdity of such opinions? Lots of us are trying to figure out the answers.

 

Here’s a politically correct guide to opinions about kittens. It starts:

 

All kittens are equal.

All kittens are not equal.

All opinions about

kittens are equal.

One must not judge

opinions about kittens.

Who are we to judge

if all kittens are equal?

Except Israeli kittens …

http://elsasblog.com/logical-fallacy-in-politically-correct-thinking.html

 

I will end with Professor Emeritus Joan Wiggins on politically correct people vs. human rights people.

 

But first, now or later, Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and whatever else you may enjoy celebrating.

 

All the best,

 

Elsa

 

Promo Photo Joan Wiggins

Joan Wiggins - PC vs Pro-Human Rights promo

 

___________________

***[Blog Editor: Here is the Google Translation to English of the link http://www.postedeveille.ca/2014/12/commission-des-droits-liberte-dexpression.html.]

 

Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

12/04/2014

Poste de veille [Post standby]

 

After two terrorist attacks, the Quebec Human Rights Commission proposes to limit the freedom of expression. One comes to believe that terrorism is an effective weapon: freedom back, and Sharia advance.

 

However, the Islamists should avoid too excited because censorship can be a double-edged weapon.

 

The Premier of Quebec Philippe Couillard announced recently the formation of a group of representatives of the Muslim community to “fight against youth radicalization and the rise of Islamophobia.”

 

As part of the fight against Islamophobia, President of the Commission on Human Rights of Quebec, Jacques Frémont, recommends * to add to the Charter of Rights a new provision that would prohibit “public incitement to hatred “to groups protected against discrimination. However, criticism of Islam is equated with “hate speech” by Islamists.

 

In an interview with Radio-Canada, Jacques Frémont   justified the relevance of limiting freedom of expression, relying in particular on the teachings of the Supreme Court of Canada on a case to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States, and on the UN Recommendations:

 

This new provision “would allow victims including about hate crimes and making complaints, and possibly receive compensation, if any.

 

“With Article 10.1 of the Charter, which recognizes the right to equality without discrimination or harassment, “it is necessary that the injury is personal and individual, that is to say, it needs to be a victim who comes and who demonstrates the victim, she was assigned, and is entitled to damages, and then section 10.1 is used for this purpose.

 

“Now it is clear that with the new provision we offer, such as when there is a web site that raves, which has about the hatred of incentives in relation to particular groups, think of Muslim groups we saw some of the sites currently no sufficient interest to be present with us and make the request. With the new provision, then, there is a way for us to investigate (ourselves, even if there is no person who shows up) and for a person who, for example, if the site web is Muslim, and it was a francophone Quebec person francophone Quebec person could come forward and make a complaint. “

 

The new provision “is much more general public incitement to hatred on a prohibited ground of discrimination. So you do not need to be a victim and particularized to demonstrate. “

 

“What we propose is a remedy that does not currently exist. If we had been complaints over anti-Muslim websites, for example (as we had in), we must reject the current situation – whereas now, if we had this provision there could accept them and move forward. “

 

“It is clear that what is being proposed, it has to be attached to discrimination, harassment and exploitation. These are the three criteria. “

 

“We, it was inspired by a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, because ultimately, it is the freedom of expression that is in question. And as human rights commission, freedom of expression is very important, so it should not restrict unduly. But the Supreme Court tells us that in cases of discrimination, harassment or exploitation, we can move forward. It is legitimate and what is legitimate for the provinces to act in that field. “

 

“There is a recommendation of the United Nations General Assembly, the High Commissioner of the United Nations Human Rights, which is exactly in the same direction. And from what I understand in dispatches in the newspapers, even the Supreme Court of the United States, now when we speak, is ready to challenge for First Amendment when it comes to hate speech.

 

“In other words, there is a movement across the world is to respond to that hate speech of this kind are not acceptable in any society whatsoever.

 

“It’s when you have about generals, hateful general, incitement to hatred, etc. where there no casualties particularized, the group in general who is a victim – – that’s what we aim by this provision.”

 

The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada

 

Mr. Frémont refers to the case of William Whatcott (judgment of 27 February 2013), a Christian from Saskatchewan who had distributed pamphlets disparaging homosexuality, and was convicted of incitement to hatred of homosexuals.

 

Mario Roy had spoken in an editorial in La Presse in 2011, before the Supreme Court rendered its judgment. Roy placed the lawsuit against Whatcott in the context of the arrival in Montreal at the invitation of a Muslim student association at Concordia University, Muslim preachers known for advocating the criminalization of homosexuality.

 

If the Charter of Rights is changed according to the terms described by Mr. Fremont, homosexuals will be available to the new provisions against this type of preachers and those who invite them (student associations, mosques, etc.). The favorable Islamist censorship could see that this is a double edged sword.

 

Case to be heard by the US Supreme Court

 

The cause to which referred Mr. Frémont is Anthony Elonis case, which at first sight seems somewhat related to proposed amendments to the Charter of Rights. CBC summarizes well the cause:

 

On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States has heard the arguments of both parties in the case of Anthony Elonis, a resident of Pennsylvania, which was found to have threatened to kill his ex-wife.

 

The man had displayed particular, on Facebook, a “poem” particularly violent in the place of his former wife. (… )

 

The Supreme Court must now determine whether these publications Mr. Elonis are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

 

UN Recommendation

 

When Mr. Frémont speaks of a recommendation of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights along the lines of a limit on freedom of expression, it refers to the Istanbul Process, which is nothing but a result of the continuous efforts of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for over ten years in order to prohibit “defamation of religions” in international law. This is a modern version of blasphemy.

 

In analyzing the “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process, Nina Shea reports on the conference held in Washington with the OIC in order to implement UN resolutions on the pretext to fight “religious intolerance” threaten to lead to the suppression of any criticism of Islam and Sharia. The Washington meeting was planned in Istanbul, hence the name “Istanbul Process”.

 

Sectarian rivalries within Islam

 

The proposed amendment to the Charter of Rights could also be used by sectarian Muslims against peaceful Muslims. For example, the United Kingdom, Fadak TV satellite channel founded by a Shiite anti-Khomeini shiraziste, which promotes the freedom to criticize religions, is the subject of an investigation of the British regulatory authorities to “hate propaganda “following complaints from Sunnis and Khomeinists.

 

Federally, Ottawa is considering criminalizing the glorification of terrorism

 

According to the Press:

 

The federal Justice Minister, Peter MacKay, considering to pass a law that would make crime to applaud a terrorist act.

 

The law in the UK is tackling the “encouragement of terrorism”. This “encouragement” direct or indirect, is illegal. A person guilty of this crime may be assessed up to seven years imprisonment.

 

Civil liberties groups, the United Kingdom, are worried.

 

Initiatives to limit freedom of expression are worrying. Islamists seek to roll back the freedoms in the West, and particular freedom of expression, the foundation of democracy. A government that advocates censorship makes them a dangerous concession. In fact, one could almost say that it encourages terrorism, because after two attacks, Quebec wants to limit criticism of Islam. Or if you cannot criticize Islam is that already lives under Sharia law. What is the message? The message is that terrorism is an effective weapon: it pushed back the freedom of expression and advance the Sharia.

 

If Ottawa gives up his plan to punish advocating terrorism, we risk ending up in an absurd situation: the glorification of terrorism would be legal, but criticism of Islam which terrorists claim may be illegal.

 

The federal government had a provision similar to the one proposed by the Human Rights Commission, namely Article 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the person who gave the Canadian Human Rights Commission, investigative powers over “speech hate “online. Ottawa repealed this article, which was misused. These abuses are explained in an editorial in the National Post and a section of Lorne Gunter’s Edmonton Sun.

 

* I have commented out the Human Rights Commission, the relevant extract of memory on the proposal to amend the Charter of Rights.

 

See also:

 

Dossier: Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

 

 

The “Istanbul Process”, a perverse process

 

 

USA: the “Istanbul Process” is a bad idea

 

 

USA: State Department against Freedom of Expression

 

 

The OIC recovery efforts for the criminalization of defamation of religions

 

 

The International Humanist and Ethical Union laws against the “defamation of religions”

 

 

GB: A Shiite Sheikh shiraziste advocates for the right to criticize Islam

 

 

Canada: The Rights Commission loses his powers of censure

 

 

Canada: A bill abolishing censorship powers of the human rights commission

 

[Blog Editor: running a spell check on the Google Translation]

________________________________

Human Rights Denied in the Name of Human Rights

 

From Elsa Schieder of World Truth Summit

_________________________

Towards a ban on criticizing Islam in Quebec?

In French: Vers une interdiction de critiquer l’islam au Québec?

 

Poste de veille [Post standby] Homepage

 

The Project – The Full Glenn Beck Documentary


February 22, 2014

 

I found this Glenn Beck produced documentary while doing a bit of research The Project which is an agenda formulated by the Muslim Brotherhood to take North America for Islam. You can find various links about this nefarious Muslim Brotherhood plan to erase American culture in the second half of the post “Islam is an Anti-American – Antichrist Religious Cult”. The second half of that post is where the emphasis on The Project is at.

 

The Glenn Beck documentary link at that post will take you to a disclose.tv version. Although disclose.tv had an embed code, my other blogs reject its usage because they seem to be dominated by an emphasis of Youtube usage. The good news is I found a Youtube version of the documentary and below you can watch the full version.

 

VIDEO: The Project parts 1-2, FULL video

 

Posted by usmc7242

Published Sep 30, 2012

 

The Project, by Glenn Beck, covers the infiltration of the United States government and our institutions by the Muslim Brotherhood.

http://www.theblaze.com/theproject/

In 2001, an inconspicuous manifesto now known as “The Project” was recovered during a raid in Switzerland: A manifesto that turned out to be a Muslim roadmap for infiltrating and defeating the West. Today, files containing evidence from the largest terror financing trial in U.S. history, which include details about “The Project”, are being withheld by the Department of Justice.

In an explosive two-part mini-series, TheBlaze documentary unit investigates how the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the American government and exposes how our nation’s safety is in jeopardy as a result of this dangerous government cover up.

________________________

The Blaze links to Part 1 and Part 2:

 

1)     The Project’ Part I — All Totalitarian Ideologies Are Threat to U.S.

 

2)     TheBlazeTV Unveils ‘The Project’ Part II: Civilization Jihad

 

The two above links also include text information preceding the documentaries.

 

JRH 2/22/14

Please Support NCCR

Powerful Islamist Org. Ramps Up War on Free Speech in West


Stop Global Islamization

In the spirit of my last post concerning Geert Wilders giving a little correction to Pope Francis’ claim that authentic Islam is not violent, here is the Clarion Project exposing the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) for telling us Islam trumps Free Speech.

 

JRH 12/12/13

Please Support NCCR

******************************

Powerful Islamist Org. Ramps Up War on Free Speech in West

The primary objective of the OIC is to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban ‘negative stereotyping of Islam.’

 

By SOEREN KERN

December 12, 2013

The Clarion Project

 

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation, an influential bloc of 57 Muslim countries, has released the latest edition of its annual “Islamophobia” report.

 

The “Sixth OIC Observatory Report on Islamophobia: October 2012-September 2013” is a 94-page document purporting to “offer a comprehensive picture of Islamophobia, as it exists mainly in contemporary Western societies.”

 

The primary objective of the OIC—headquartered in Saudi Arabia and funded by dozens of Muslim countries that systematically persecute Christians and Jews—has long been to pressure Western countries into passing laws that would ban “negative stereotyping of Islam.”

 

In this context, the OIC’s annual Islamophobia report—an integral part of a sustained effort to prove the existence of a “culture of intolerance of Islam and Muslims” in the West—is in essence a lobbying tool to pressure Western governments to outlaw all forms of “Islamophobia,” a nebulous concept invented by the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1990s.

 

The OIC report comprises five main chapters and several annexes aimed at documenting “incidents of slandering and demeaning Muslims and their sacred symbols including attacks on mosques, verbal abuses and physical attacks against adherents of Islam, mainly due to their cultural traits.”

 

But the common thread that binds the entire document together is the OIC’s repeated insistence that the main culprit responsible for “the institutionalization of Islamophobia” in Western countries is freedom of speech, which the OIC claims has “contributed enormously to snowball Islamophobia and manipulate the mindset of ordinary Western people to develop a ‘phobia’ of Islam and Muslims.”

 

According to the OIC, freedom of expression is shielding “the perpetrators of Islamophobia, who seek to propagate irrational fear and intolerance of Islam, [who] have time and again aroused unwarranted tension, suspicion and unrest in societies by slandering the Islamic faith through gross distortions and misrepresentations and by encroaching on and denigrating the religious sentiments of Muslims.”

 

Chapter 1 of the report deals with “Islamophobia, Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims,” and purports to reveal the “unabated rise of Islamophobia in Western countries, thereby exacerbating tensions at all levels and constituting additional obstacles to the diversity and multicultural fabrics of the societies.”

 

According to the OIC, freedom of speech is to blame for the “perpetuation of Islamophobia,” which:

 

“…has become increasingly widespread, which, in turn, has caused an increase in the actual number of hate crimes committed against Muslims. These crimes range from the usual verbal abuse and discrimination, particularly in the fields of education and employment, to other acts of violence and vandalism, including physical assaults, attacks on Islamic centers and the desecration of mosques and cemeteries.”

 

“In this context, acceptance of various forms of intolerance, including hate speech and the propagation of negative stereotypes against Islam and Muslims in some western countries contribute towards proliferation of intolerant societies. This process is further supported by… the exploitation of freedom of expression and perpetuation of an ideological context advocating an inescapable conflict of civilizations.”

 

Another factor favoring “the climate of intolerance” is:

 

“…the negative role played by major media outlets who not only propagate stereotypes and misperceptions about Islam, but also undermine and usually keep shadowed any meaningful instance of individuals or groups speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred and violence. This biased approach of the media has helped drawing an emphatically demonized, sometimes dehumanized, image of Muslims in the minds of a certain class of people which is predisposed to xenophobic feelings due to the increasingly dire economic situation, or the simply to the irrational fear of the other.”

 

Chapter 2 of the report deals with “Manifestations of Islamophobia in the West.” According to the OIC:

 

“The number of Islamophobic incidents continues to rise in the US, as a result of anti-Muslim propaganda. It is particularly alarming that anti-Muslim sentiments are taking deeper roots infiltrating further in the educational system. Notable among several other worrying trends/cases are: the initiatives taken by a leading and powerful US legislator [US Representative Peter King] to convene special Congressional Hearings on Radicalization of Islam in the US… In the same vein, the Republican Party in the recent 2013 [sic] US Presidential elections also used the anti-Islam card as a strategy.”

 

“With regard to Islamophobic trends in Europe, various reports and polls have revealed growing misperception vis-à-vis Islam and Muslims. Among the most common and recurring… are the ideas that Muslims are inclined to violence including revenge and retaliation; that Islam is an inherently expansionist religion, which strives for political influence, and whose followers are obsessed with proselytizing others, and more generally that Islam deprives women of their rights and encourages religious fanaticism and radicalism. According to the same polls, only a minor portion of the public tends to see Islam in a more positive light, as being a religion of peace that preaches love for neighbors, charity, openness and tolerance… Muslims who live in xenophobic environments are more exposed to daily stress and other forms of moral prejudice.”

 

The OIC concludes that “journalists and media organizations have a responsibility to avoid promoting rhetoric of hate by acting as a platform for its widespread dissemination.”

 

Chapter 3 of the OIC report highlights “Some Positive Developments” in terms of initiatives and other steps and positions taken to combat Islamophobia, including:

 

“…the condemnation of anti-Muslim hate speech by various quarters, including non-Muslim religious leaders; the barring from entry of certain Islamophobes to a number of countries where they intended to take part in anti-Muslim rallies or deliver inflammatory lectures; the recognition of Muslim holidays and other strict sanctions taken against acts of manifest religious intolerance. It was noted with satisfaction that a number of international organizations, including UNSECO, the OSCE and the Council of Europe, have recognized the danger posed by Islamophobia and have taken concrete steps to combat it, notably by laying down Guidelines for Educators on Countering Intolerance and Discrimination against Muslims.”

 

Chapter 4 of the report, “OIC Initiatives and Activities to Counter Islamophobia,” focused on the OIC’s ongoing efforts to promote the so-called Istanbul Process, an aggressive effort by Muslim countries to make it an international crime to criticize Islam. The explicit aim of the Istanbul Process is to enshrine in international law a global ban on all critical scrutiny of Islam and Islamic Sharia law.

 

In recent years, the OIC has been engaged in a determined diplomatic offensive to persuade Western democracies to implement United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) Resolution 16/18, which calls on all countries to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of… religion and belief.” (Analysis of the OIC’s war on free speech can be found here and here.)

 

Resolution 16/18, which was adopted at HRC headquarters in Geneva in March 2011 (with the support of the Obama Administration)—together with the OIC-sponsored Resolution 66/167, which was quietly approved by the 193-member UN General Assembly on December 19, 2011—is widely viewed as marking a significant step forward in OIC efforts to advance the international legal concept of defaming Islam.

 

Chapter 5 of the OIC report provides a set of conclusions and recommendations, which call on Western governments, international organizations and non-state actors to:

 

“Take all necessary measures within their power and legal/jurisdictional systems to ensure a safe environment free from Islamophobic harassment… by strictly enforcing applicable hate crime and discrimination laws;

 

“Create, whenever necessary, specialized bodies and initiatives in order to combat Islamophobia… based on internationally recognized human rights principles and standards;

 

“Combat Islamophobic hate crimes, which can be fuelled by Islamophobic hate speech in the media and on the Internet;

 

“Take all necessary measures to ensure that the media refrains from serving as a platform for the dissemination of hate speech… by associating extremism and terrorism to Islam and Muslims… and presents the true positive nature of Islam.

 

“Implement provisions of UNHRC Resolution 16/18 through the Istanbul Process mechanism as it offers a positive platform for debate, exchange of best practices and maintaining of a common and unified stance.”

 

The report states that “the OIC and the Member States should not be complacent in underscoring the fact that our present day world is gradually being driven towards the dangerous precipices of growing intolerance of religious and cultural diversity. This is the clear and present danger that the OIC has been consistent in warning the international community against. The sooner the phenomenon of Islamophobia is addressed, the better it is for ensuring peaceful coexistence of the present as well for the future generations to come.”

 

The report concludes with the transcript of a speech by OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, in which he thanks American and European political leaders for their help (here and here) in advancing his efforts to restrict free speech in the West.

 

“The Istanbul Process initiated with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton … must be carried forward … the Istanbul Process must also be seen as a poster child of OIC-US-EU cooperation …” Ihsanoglu said.

___________________________________

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook.

 

Copyright © 2013 Clarion Project, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

About Clarion Project

Burning the Quran will Factor in the News Again


Burn Quran - Terry Jones

John R. Houk

© June 18, 2012

 

I know that most sane people believes that Terry Jones is a Muslim-hating crank covered in the auspices of a Christian Church and an academic doctorate. The thing is though his politically incorrect agenda to burn Qurans and stand on the roof tops proclaiming that Islam is incompatible with the U.S. Constitution is absolutely a good thing.

 

The Quran commands Muslims to convert, humiliate or kill Jews and Christians. Why? Jews and Christians believe the Bible (Pentateuch-Torah for Jews and both Old Testament and New Testament for Christians) is the Word of God while the Quran is a collection warped lies plagiarized from the Bible. The Quran actually claims the Holy writings of the Bible that pre-date Mohammed and the Quran is a pile of paper deception.

 

As an American Christian the anti-Liberty, Jew-Hatred and Christian-hatred embedded in the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira are quite enough to peacefully expose the nature of Islam and Sharia Law as it affects the Constitution, Judaism and Christianity. I placed the words ‘peacefully expose’ to remind non-Muslims living under the authority of the U.S. Constitution cannot and must not use violence against another religion even a theopolitical religion such as Islam. In America Religious Freedom and Free Speech are guaranteed by the very Constitution that purist Muslims desire to destroy. HOWEVER, Religious Freedom and Free Speech does not give a pass to anyone – religious or political ideology or both – to commit acts of violence against people living under the rule of law defined by the U.S. Constitution. Acts of violence aimed to illegally bring down Constitutional government is treason and should be treated as such.

 

Terry Jones is not committing ANY acts of violence against people when he publicly announces he is going to burn 2,998 Qurans representing the deaths of Americans by Muslims killing in the name of Allah just as the Quran commands to do against those that refuse Islamic Supremacism. Note the violence perpetrated on 9/11 was done by Radical Muslims against working Americans who for the most part had no idea their political system under the U.S. Constitution insulted Islam so much that Islamic honor required retribution.

 

Leftists are blind multiculturalists so I can see their extreme dislike of Terry Jones. Most upstanding Conservatives especially Republicans condemn Terry Jones because they have brainwashed that criticism of Islam is hate-speech thanks to the hard work of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the multiculturalist mindset of European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) complicity with the OIC agenda to squash all criticism of Islam.

 

In writing all this below is the latest public announcement from Terry Jones announcing another World Burn the Quran day scheduled for September 11, 2013. The synopsis below the video directs you to go to the website Stand Up America for more details.

 

JRH 6/18/13

Please Support NCCR

***********************************

Dr. Terry Jones to Burn 2998 Korans on 9/11

 

Posted by StandUpAmericaNow Youtube Channel

Posted Apr 12, 2013

 

Stand Up America Media Release

WORLDWIDE BURNING OF 2,998 KORANS ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 2013

 

By Dr Terry Jones

Email Sent: June 17, 2013 5:22 AM

Sent from: Stand Up America Now

Tampa Bay, Florida – location securedWorld Wide Burning 2998 Korans

 

We have secured a location in the Tampa Bay area for our September 11th event. We will be releasing the location in the near future.

 

The radical hand of Islam shows itself with violence against anyone who dares to stand up and speak the truth. We at Stand Up America Now will not back down. We will not be silent.

Abraham Lincoln said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”

On September 11th, 2013, to remember those who were murdered by radical Islam, and to send Islam a very clear warning, that they will not get their foothold in the American Constitution as they have done in Europe, we will be holding an International Burning of 2,998 Korans, representing one for each individual who was murdered in the September 11th, 2001 attacks.
 

President Obama is a aggressively working to convince the American public that criticism of Islam is a violation of a Muslim’s civil rights. The American Muslim Advisory Council of Tennessee met last week with top Department of Justice official, Bill Killian. Both groups agree: federal civil rights laws are violated by those who post “inflammatory documents” aimed at Muslims on social media.

Peaceful speech and expression is fully within our civil rights!  Criticism of Islam cannot be avoided, especially in light of recent events. While this scrutiny is to be considered “inflammatory,” the murderously inflammatory words of the Koran and the teachings of Islam’s leaders are protected.  We are on an extremely dangerous path as a nation!

The Boston Marathon attack: murders in the name of Islam
 Tsarnaev Bros at Boston

The Woolwich, UK, killing of British soldier Lee Rigby

The Woolwich, UK, killing of British soldier Lee Rigby

 

The stabbing of a soldier in France, again by a Muslim

The stabbing of a soldier in France, again by a Muslim

 

ALL committed by men acting on the teachings of Islam and the Koran!

 

 

 

 

Video:  Dr. Terry Jones to Burn 2998 Korans on 9/11

 

Stand Up America Now, invites you to send Korans to: 

5805 NW 37 Street, Gainesville, Florida 32653

 

 

SEE OUR FACEBOOK EVENT PAGEWorldwide Burning of 2998 Korans on September 11th, 2013

 

 

Thank you,

Dr Terry Jones

Stand Up America Now

 

 

This poster was featured in a recent Inspire Magazine published by al Qaeda in Yemen. (Source: MEMRI.org)

This poster was featured in a recent Inspire Magazine published by al Qaeda in Yemen. (Source MEMRI.org)

 

Website: www.standupamericanow.org

On YouTube: StandUpAmericaNow

On Twitter:  @DrTerryDJones     @Stand_UpAmerica

On Facebook:  Stand Up America with Dr Terry Jones

__________________________

Burning the Quran will Factor in the News Again

John R. Houk

© June 18, 2012

____________________________

WORLDWIDE BURNING OF 2,998 KORANS ON SEPTEMBER 11th, 2013

 

Please financially support us as we continue our stand against radical Islam and the moral decline of America: DONATE TODAY

 

You can also PARTNER with Stand Up America Now by making a monthly donation.

 

Donations may be mailed to:

5200 NW 43rd St
Ste. 102 #188
Gainesville, FL 32606-4486
United States


MEDIA CONTACT: (352) 371-2487 or (352) 871-2680 (Stephanie Sapp)
Fax: 352-371-6511
Email:
info@standupamericanow.org

Pastor Bob Roberts Embraces Radical Islam for his Church


Bob Roberts - Texas Pastor supporting Radical Islam 2

John R. Houk

© June 13, 2013

 

Ever heard of Pastor Bob Roberts of Northwood Church of Keller, TX? Well I had not because I avoid reading circles of people that I am certain I will have a low opinion. Pastor Roberts hangs around a group of Evangelical leaders that tend to water down the Christian faith particularly the orthodox (for clarity – I am not writing of Eastern Orthodoxy) teachings of Biblical theology in which all divisions within Christianity have long agreed upon up until at least the 20th century.

 

So what do I consider Christian orthodoxy acceptable to all Christians?

 

Jesus Christ was born in the flesh from the Virgin Mary and the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is God before His Virgin Birth as a man. So Jesus is both God and the Son of God. Jesus was crucified and died on the Cross to pay the debt of Adam’s sin. The Resurrection of Jesus in a flesh body Redeemed all of humanity that believe Jesus is the Son of God arisen in the flesh now glorified sitting at the Right Hand of the Father with the Promise of returning to Redeem the rest of Earth from the curse of Adam’s Fall. Now there is a lot more that I believe in the Ministry and Redemptive act of Jesus, but this is where Christians begin to diverge in their theology.

 

I can safely say that Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Believers and Protestants agree on the essentials of the articles of Faith which I just wrote. Even the Coptic Church – the largest Christian Church stuck under Islamic Supremacism – agrees with the above paragraph with a minor disagreement of the nature of Christ (a disagreement that was considered huge between Eastern [Greek] Orthodox and Copts in the days that Muslims conquered Egypt).

 

Pastor Bob Roberts has misapplied the Love of Christ to mean to fellowship with Muslims as brothers. We can agree that God so loved the world that He gave His only Son to Redeem all humanity. We can all agree that Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself and the New Testament Epistles elaborate on this Golden Rule by calling Christians to honor all men (21st century political correctness: all men and women or all people). This would include people who are not Christians. Pastor Roberts takes this “honor all men” to the level of let’s fellowship as brothers with those that hate Christians and Jews; viz. Muslims.

 

Muslims that strive to live a harmonious life under their Allah might act on the thoughts that Islam is peace and that there is no compulsion of religion in Islam toward non-Muslims; however that is very divergent from their holy writings in the Quran and Hadith. In the Quran the Muslim doctrine of Abrogation allows Muslims to focus on the Quranic Suras that tell the Muslims to enslave non-Muslims under a life 2nd class domination under Islamic Supremacism (dhimmitude) or kill Christians and Jews for not submitting or converting.

 

You see the Quran has NO Golden Rule equivalent to the Biblical Golden Rule. The Quran is conquer, enslave or kill. The Bible is share the Good News of Jesus Christ so people can choose willingly to be Redeemed now or face damnation in the NEXT Life. The difference between Quran commands and Biblical New Testament commands are HUGE.

 

Muslims are either lying or ignorant of their own Quranic theology if they tell you this a non-Muslim deception. In Islamic theology the concept of duality actually allows for a Muslim to follow the peace and love Suras above the violent Suras that abrogate peace and love. The Islamic theology of duality: abrogated and non-abrogated Suras are both valid depending on the circumstance chosen by an Islamic authority such as a Mullah or Cleric or Islamic leader rather secular or theological. In Islam secular and theology are merged as one authority in advancing Jihad.

 

Muslims tell Westerners of the so-called Greater Jihad which is that internal struggle to live submitted to Allah. The historical reality is the so-called Lesser Jihad – Conversion by Conquest and humiliation – is the primary fashion that Islam spread throughout the Middle East, North Africa, India and parts of Europe. AND the so-called Lesser Jihad is what the modern purist Muslims desire to use to establish a modern Caliphate. These purist Muslims are identified to we Westerners as Radical Islam or Islamism today. The major concern should be for Westerners and Americans in particular is that Radical Islam can be identified as the Muslim Brotherhood network spread from Egypt and the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. There are other regions of the world that export their Radical Islam toward the West but they don’t quite have financial-political clout of the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Wahhabis.

 

Pastor Bob Roberts is not extending a hand of Christian friendship to Muslims that Multiculturalists identify as Moderate Islam that place more stock in the Islam is Peace portions of the Quran, rather Pastor Roberts are reaching out to Radical Islamic elements in the USA with direct linkage to the Muslim Brotherhood. If an American Muslim organization directly tied to the Muslim Brotherhood network or Saudi Wahhabi money they desire the destruction of American Constitutional law in which Religious Freedom and Free Speech is paramount. These Radical Muslim groups are also extremely anti-Semitic to the point that when they think no one is looking the Jew-Hatred oozes out calling for Jewish destruction.

 

Pastor Roberts has Church meeting giving Islam a Muslim moment in his Church which include speakers from the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA). ISNA seems to be networked by both the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Wahhabis.

 

Pastor Roberts is often heard using Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Yusuf al-Qaradawi in his build bridges with Islam thoughts:

 

“…one of the “key Islamic leaders” Roberts invokes is … Yusuf al-Qaradawi, a man who has praised Hitler, supports female genital mutilation, supported the fatwa calling for the assassination of writer Salman Rushdie and to top it all off, has called for a second Holocaust against the Jewish people!” (Snapshots a CAMERA blog; September 20, 2012 12:35 PM)

 

Pastor Roberts glories in knowing Professor John Esposito a man reputed as an expert in all thing Islam. Esposito refuses to condemn Radical Islam and blames Islamic terrorism as a pure response to American imperialistic colonialism. Esposito’s portrayal of Islam is idiotic denial of history and fans the hypocrisy that Islam is peace even while violence is globally widespread perpetrated by Muslims.

 

Esposito subscribes to the Edward Said school of thought, which holds that Middle Eastern attitudes toward Israel can never be understood from an “American colonialist perspective.” In other words, they should be viewed from the point of view of Israel’s alleged role as a base of American imperialism. Ignoring Hamas‘ program of creating an Islamic radical state to replace Israel – a genocidal agenda – Esposito has characterized the Palestinian terror group as a community-focused organization that, in addition to its violence, does a considerable amount of societal good via such productive activities as “honey [production], cheese-making, and home-based clothing manufacture.” He has likened Yasser Arafat’s calls for jihad to social initiatives for the launching of a “literacy campaign” or a “fight against AIDS.” He has called former professor Sami al-Arian, a terrorism-supporter with strong links to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a “consummate professional.” (From John Esposito; Determine The Networks)

 

Pastor Roberts has spent time with Saudi Arabia’s former head of Intelligence Prince Turki-Al-Faisal. Pastor Roberts says this about the Saudi Prince:

 

He’s truly an exceptional man and a world leader par excellent!  I wish we had 1,000 men like him spread out across the world – this world would be a much better place.

 

As head of Saudi Arabia’s Intelligence Prince Turki al-Faisal had an amenable relationship with Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Omar the one-eyed Mullah that ruled Taliban controlled Afghanistan. This relationship was not hostile. Later the Prince had become the Saudi Ambassador to the USA. The enigma with that is he promotes Wahhabism on one side but typically of many Saudi Royal Family members also displays a Western veneer with his public actions in the West.

 

The Balfour Post ran a story mentioning the Radical Muslims I just mentioned and a few others. Read an excerpt below:

 

Pastor Bob Roberts. Jr. is known for his efforts to build-bridges with Muslims. He spoke at the “Christ at the Checkpoint” conference put together by Palestinian Christians at Bethlehem Bible College. So did Florida Pastor Joel C. Hunter, who has been negative attention for his association with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. Hunter is also critical of “Christian Zionists.”

 

An article posted on Hunter’s website reports how the “Christ at the Checkpoint” audience, including students from Wheaton and Eastern Universities, “were moved by the testimony of Palestinian men and women who shared the pain and suffering they experience on a daily basis caused primarily by the continuing occupation.”

Pastor Roberts reacted to the anti-Islam Innocence of Muslims video by suggesting that governments crack down on its distribution. He said, “There is a ‘clear and present’ danger the U.S. courts have ruled in regard to freedom of speech—I think that has to extend globally.”

In January, NorthWood Church hosted Azhar Azeez, Vice President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). ISNA is an unindicted co-conspirator in a major terrorism-financing trial. Federal prosecutors labeled ISNA a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity, a fact confirmed by the Brotherhood’s own secret documents.

In November, his church’s Global Faith Forum will bring the spotlight to his interfaith efforts and those involved in them. Event speakers include Rep. Kay Graner (R-TX), former South Carolina Governor David Beasley and Christianity Today editor Mark Galli, but they aren’t the main attractions.

The conference website’s home page proudly advertises Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the U.S. from 2005 to 2007, as a main speaker. Before that, he was the Saudi foreign intelligence chief from 1977 to 2001, making him a top figure in Saudi Arabia’s proliferation of Wahhabism around the world for over 20 years. He represented a Sharia-based government that persecutes Christians.

Faisal Bin Muammar was an advisor at the Saudi Royal Court and Secretary-General of the Riyadh-based King Abdul Aziz Center for National Dialogue.

Safi Kaskas is a co-founder of East West University in Chicago and a “strategy consultant for a number of business organizations in the USA and Saudi Arabia.” He is a member of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists. A 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memo identifies AMSS as one of “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” The memo says its “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” The AMSS is also closely linked to the International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Another main speaker is Professor John Esposito, one of the top non-Muslim supporters of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood network. He is a frequent guest speaker at their events and was a witness for the defense in the trial of the Holy Land Foundation.

The aforementioned Azhar Azeez is again speaking. He is the Vice President of ISNA and has been on its Executive Council since 2002. He is also the senior National Director of Islamic Relief USA, a charity linked to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Wadah Khanfar was the director-general of Al-Jazeera from 2006 to 2011. Al-Jazeera’s extremism is well-documented. The Arabic station even gives Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi a weekly show. (Read EntiretyTexas Mega-Church Welcomes Islamists to ‘Global Faith Forum’; by Ryan Mauro; The Balfour Post; 5/23/13)

 

See Also:

 

Why Are Some SBC Leaders Mainstreaming Islam?

 

“ISRAEL WATCH” BY JIM FLETCHER FROM RAPTURE READY – GLOCAL

 

Google’s cache of Our Imams (Irving Masjid of Imam Zia ul Haque Sheikh, PhD. And Shaikh Yaser Birjas) Pay attention to where they are from and what they belong to. As of this posting the main link was down and I read the Google cache version.

 

Below is a cross post of a Ralph Mauro article that I found in a Word Press blog I follow called Sharia Unveiled which is where I became aware Pastor Bob Roberts.

 

JRH 6/13/13

Please Support NCCR

************************************

“Pseudo-Christian” Pastor From Texas Mega-Church Partners With the Muslim Brotherhood

 

Posted by Sharia Unveiled

By Ralph Mauro

Posted June 11, 2013

 

On June 9, the Clarion Project reported that the U.S. envoy to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation will be speaking at an Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) regional conference, sharing the stage with at least three Islamists. But there are some other featured guests: ISNA’s interfaith allies, including Pastor Bob Roberts of NorthWood Church in Texas.

 

ISNA is identified in a 1991 U.S. Muslim Brotherhood memorandum as one of its fronts. The U.S. government also listed ISNA as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity when it designated the group an unindicted co-conspirator in the Hamas-financing trial of the Holy Land Foundation. The so-called “charity” was another U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity that, in the words of Judge Jorge Solis, “operated from within ISNA.” ISNA denies it has “ever been subject to the control of…the Muslim Brotherhood.”

 

ISNA’s South Central Conference will be held in Dallas on June 15. The event will feature an interfaith panel that includes its Community Outreach Director, Mohamed Elsanousi, who attended a Muslim Brotherhood-linked conference in Mauritania last year.

 

Other participants include Rabbi Joshua S. Taub of Temple Emanuel and Cristina Warner, the Campaign Director of the Shoulder-to-Shoulder Campaign, an ISNA-allied interfaith coalition. ISNA is so proud of Shoulder-to-Shoulder that its success was a top talking point of senior officials when they met with the Islamist Prime Minister of Turkey.

 

The most high-profile interfaith speaker at the ISNA regional conference is Pastor Bob Roberts of NorthWood Church, a critic of “Christian Zionists.” As reported last month, Pastor Roberts’ NorthWood Church is holding its own Islamist-stocked interfaith event called the Global Faith Forum in November. Pastor Roberts’ speakers include ISNA officials, former senior Saudi officials and a former director-general of Al-Jazeera.

 

The Clarion Project’s original article on the event provides insight into some of the fellow speakers of Pastor Roberts, Rabbi Taub and Cristina Warner.

 

The keynote speaker is Dr. Jamal Badawi, who will also be on panels about Sharia and having a healthy family. His record includes praise for Hamas, “combative jihad,” and justifying the physical disciplining of wives (or, as he says, “a gentle tap on the body” for disobedience). His name also appears in a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood phonebook from 1992 and he hangs out with Brotherhood spiritual leader Yousef al-Qaradawi. The radicalism of his resume is strong enough to prompt counter-terrorism expert Patrick Poole to ask, “Why is Jamal Badawi Still Allowed into the United States?”

 

ISNA official Yusuf Ziya Kavakci will be handling the opening remarks, leading a prayer and joining Badawi for the panel on Sharia. He used to lead a mosque that an article in 1999 said “is considered to be one of the most active centers of Hamas activity in the United States[.]” The mosque was linked to the Holy Land Foundation, the aforementioned U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity that was housed by ISNA and shut down for financing Hamas.

 

The notorious Imam Siraj Wahhaj is listed as an invited speaker at the event. His radicalism is unquestionable. He has preached that “America is the most wicked government on the face of the planet Earth.” America, he told his audience, is a “garbage can” that he prays “crumbles.” Unlike some Islamists, he doesn’t hide his desire for Sharia Law in America.

 

“If only Muslims were clever politically, they could take over the United States and replace its constitutional government with a caliphate. If we were united and strong, we’d elect our own emir and give allegiance to him. Take my word, if eight million Muslims unite in America, the country will come to us,” he said.

 

The book Muslim Mafia quotes Wahhaj even condoning violence. “We don’t need to arm the people with 9mms and Uzis. You need to arm them with righteousness first. And once you arm them with righteousness first, then you can arm them,” he said, as well as “I will never tell people, ‘Don’t be violent.’ That’s not the Islamic way.”

 

Wahhaj’s rhetoric lines right up with the private words of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood. The 1991 memorandum that identified ISNA as one of its fronts said its “work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.”

 

Page 21 of the document states: “[W]e must possess a mastery of the art of ‘coalitions’, the art of ‘absorption’ and the principles of ‘cooperation.’” That is the context that ISNA’s interfaith alliances need to be put in.

 

After my last article on NorthWood Church was published, a reader emailed me to say that he posted it to the Facebook page of the church and the personal page of Pastor Roberts. It didn’t take long for it to be deleted. Ignorance is no longer an excuse.

 

Watch this video and see exactly who this “Pseudo-Christian” Pastor is working for:

 

Source:  http://frontpagemag.com/2013/ryan-mauro/texas-mega-church-leader-partners-with-muslim-brotherhood-front/

__________________________

Pastor Bob Roberts Embraces Radical Islam for his Church

John R. Houk

© June 13, 2013

__________________________

“Pseudo-Christian” Pastor From Texas Mega-Church Partners With the Muslim Brotherhood

 

About Page:

 

TRUTH!  

                                         

…in a word, that is what sharia unveiled is about.

 

sharia unveiled is committed to seeking and sharing the truth.  In all things, there is only one truth.  There is no “middle ground” in truth.  There is no “compromise” in truth and there is no “tolerance” in truth.  There is no “leuke warm” in truth.  There are no “grey areas” in truth.  Truth is black and white.  Wrong or Right.  There is truth and everything else is just a lie.

 

We live in this world although we are not of it.

 

We live in a world of darkness, lies and deception.  We live in a world that protects, defends and rewards those who lie.  Why?  Primarily due to the fact that faith is being forced out of the world and evil is being invited in.  When we force God out essentially, we are creating a vacuum in society.  We are creating a void of empty space and the natural tendency is for that space to be filled.  The door has been left open and evil has been invited in.  Evil comes in many forms although rarely does it present itself as evil.  In most cases, it hides itself beneath a cloak of deception and a pretty name.  Sometimes evil even hides beneath the facade of “Peace and Love.”

 

We are dedicated to human rights.

 

sharia unveiled is absolutely and unequivocally devoted to the protection and defense of human rights.  There are many areas of human rights violations in the world today.  Unfortunately, there are too many for any one person or group to be able to focus on them all.  We pledge to focus on Read the Rest

 

Islam is Political


Rebecca Bynum

 

Islam is Political

Ask Rebecca Bynum

John R. Houk

© June 9, 2013

 

Rebecca Bynum has written a book entitled “Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion”. Bynum is also the editor of the New English Review (NER). The NER has a review of Bynum’s book, but guess what? The NER is a victim of a cyber-attack. I have no doubts the cyber-attack was perpetrated by Muslims that are disenchanted with Free Speech that exposes the political nature of Islam. I believe that is the essential theme of “Allah is Dead”. Which is to say Islam has the trappings of a religion but is practiced with political ideological fervor to achieve political results in laws and culture.

 

I am unsure if there is any legal protection for the NER because I am unsure how enforceable Obama has made U.N. Resolution 16/18 in America in which the First Amendment should trump U.N. international law. If Obama enforces UN Res. 16/18 unconstitutionally then Rebecca Bynum could potentially be charged with hate-speech crimes for – cough – defaming Islam with a title like “Allah is Dead”.

 

So Bynum could potentially criminal charges under international law even though the hate-crime was perpetrated against Bynum and NER with a cyber-attack.

 

Here is an excerpt from the Gates of Vienna on the cyber-attack against NER:

 

New English Review Taken Down by DDOS

[6/5/13]

 

As most readers already know, the New English Review was brought down by a Directed Denial of Service attack (DDOS) during the night. The attack may or may not have been connected with the AFDI rally against sharia, which featured New English Review writers among its speakers.

 

Rebecca Bynum, the editor of NER, just sent us this brief note:

 

For those of you who don’t know yet, after I gave my short speech in Manchester TN last night, New English Review was cyber-attacked and remains down. The attack took out the entire network of sites hosted by ICG Link. They are now moving us to our own private server and will try to get us back up and running as soon as possible. Here is Jerry Gordon’s write-up of the event and my remarks at the AFDI protest on WatchDog Wire, which was very heartening.

 

Some excerpts from the story at WatchDog Wire:

 

Our NER colleague Rebecca Bynum drove down yesterday evening from Nashville to speak at an AFDI protest rally with Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller outside the Manchester — Coffee County Conference Center. The protest rally was scheduled for 5:30 p.m. When she arrived at 5:00 p.m. 150 people were already present, some with posters that read, “Just say no! to Islam” and even a booth selling “Sharia for Non —Muslims”. By the time the program started at 6:30 p.m., the hall was filled to overflowing with an estimated 800 inside according to the local Police Chief. So the Fire Marshall ordered the hall closed.

 

[…]

 

While the audience was disruptive, Bynum told me they were prepared and knowledgeable about Islamic doctrine. One source told of military that came down from Fort Campbell, Kentucky especially to attend this event. Members of the contingent commented to one audience member, “We fought this in the sandbox against Sharia, and we came home to find that it is happening here and now.” Many in the audience were veterans and of a similar cast of mind.

 

US Attorney Killian and FBI Special Agent Moore told the audience that if you defame Islam and engage in hate speech towards Muslims that you will be prosecuted to the fullest. Killian gave a power point presentation on what constituted hate speech under US law. He read off a list of White Supremacist and extremist groups probably provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center as exemplars of who the government was on the lookout for. FBI Special Agent Moore told the audience they were endeavoring to protect Muslim children from hate. At one point he noted that after 9/11 the FBI even hired Muslims as translators to which someone in the audience cried out, “yeah, but you didn’t hire Jews!” Ms. Sabina Mohyuddin, the AMACTN organizer of this event actually told the booing crowd to “shut up and listen to me!” One audience member commented in an email “that was like throwing oil on the fire”.

 

[…]

 

Daring to enforce OIC blasphemy codes under the guise of prosecuting hate speech. Make no bones about it. The heartland of America was outraged last night in Manchester, Tennessee.

 

Watch this Nashville Channel 4 WSMV TV video of the protest at the AMACTN event in Manchester, TN.

 

As you can see from the above report, the FBI and the Department of Justice are already attempting to implement the sharia blasphemy laws laid out by OIC Secretary-General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, as discussed in an earlier post.

 

The federal fox is not only guarding the American henhouse: he is heating up Read the Rest – very good info!

 

The New English Review is an awesome expose Islam website. I pray the powers that be get it up running again soon. In the meantime here is a 2011 review of “Allah is Dead”. Here is more about a rally in Manchester TN exposing Stealth Jihad in which you can read the text of Rebecca Bynum’s speech. Below is a cross post from a Tea Party Nation social site posted by Jack E. Kemp in which selected excerpts from Rebecca Bynum are posted.

 

Allah is Dead bk jk

 

JRH 6/9/13

Please Support NCCR

***********************************

Rebecca Bynum says Islam is not a religion but a hybrid

 

Posted by Jack E. Kemp

June 9, 2013 at 9:12am

Tea Party Nation

 

Jack E. Kemp

I just began reading Rebecca Bynum’s book “Allah is Dead: Why Islam is not a religion.” I urge you all to read the book, along with myself. The Introduction alone is a brilliant argument worthy of a great article, where it states:

BEGIN QUOTE

…In this book, I take a highly focused look at Islam and whether or not it should rightly be classified or described as a religion, let alone an “Abrahamic religion” or one of the “world’s great religions” as it has been presented.

There is no question, of course, that Muslims themselves believe Islam is a religion. And there is equally no question that Islam harnesses the religious impulse. But it can be argued that communism and Nazism likewise harnessed the religious impulse and that millions of people believed in those ideologies with full religious fervor and devotion. The fact of faith alone does not confer the status of religion on an ideology.

Furthermore, when Islam is analyzed philosophically it reveals itself to be closer to ideologies such as material determinism, nihilism, and even social Darwinism than it is to either Christianity or Judaism…

…The Constitution protects freedom of religion within certain bounds, but to date there had been no Constitutional definition of what actually constitutes a religion in a Judeo-Christian context and America has limited religious practices in the past.

An important precedent was set when Utah was threatened with invasion and federal occupation unless the Mormons living there changed their religious practice of polygamy. Because the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had a living prophet who could alter the religious tenets of the Church, essentially assigning polygamy to the afterlife, this change was made possible and Utah entered the Union after polygamy was officially banned in the territory. The Mormon Church now has protection under the religious liberty clause, but it did not while the church sanctioned and its members practiced polygamy…

…Polygamy is not marriage and should never be allowed protection under the idea of freedom of religion. There is little chance, however, that Islam will be changed to allow it to fit in with normal Western customs the way Mormonism was changed. A brochure distributed by the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, extols the supremacy of polygamy throughout, offering it as a superior lifestyle choice, but nowhere does it even mention that polygamy is illegal in America. It openly advocates breaking the law…

Thee (sic) is, however, a current of modern thought seeking to elevate a laudable personal virtue, that of tolerance, over the greater principle of justice. Is it just to tolerate polygamy in the name of religious freedom? The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in 1878, Reynolds v. United States, it is not. Is it just to tolerate the unequal right to inheritance for women? Is it just to tolerate forced marriage? Is it just to tolerate antisemitism? Is it just to tolerate the preaching of hatred toward non-Muslims? Is it just to tolerate the teaching that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and that men are superior to women? Is it just to tolerate a parallel legal system based on inequality? There are things that our society cannot tolerate and expect to survive. Justice must take its rightful place above tolerance.

END

_________________________

Islam is Political

John R. Houk

© June 9, 2013

________________________

Rebecca Bynum says Islam is not a religion but a hybrid

 

Tea Party Nation social homepage